David Leimbach wrote:
On 3/29/07, W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip* (ufs on mac vs hfs+)
BSD-compatible filenames as well as a faster fs.
Got some numbers to back that up?
Unfortunately not.
I used hfs+ for several months, and (coming off hpfs-386, jfs, and ufs) was
convinced it was naught but the dying embers of the 'Woz machine' era.
Odd-man-out in any case.
I use ufs so the the detachable HDD and flash are readable across the rest of my
environment.
Right after the change, it seemed the lowly 1 GHz G4 was on steroids, and I've
seen the same 'perceived' speedup on 2 OSX 10.3X and 4 10.4X Mac Mini as well,
though I've retained a largish hfs+ partition on those to support VPC & such.
> Or links?
Most of the links I found while researching and planning the change were in the
10.1 era.
> I'm curious. Because
HFS's many variations
- don't forget that some 'hfs' are the Hewlett-Packard File System, not related,
AFAIK, while others are not relevant to modern device sizes.
> (some of which ARE case sensitive)
Yes and no. Case-preserving (finally) yes. Sort of.
Case-agnostic, and - as importantly, since I work in Chinese AND not just UTF-8,
- *encoding-agnostic*, it is not.
There are some comparisons at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems
Fossil is covered, Venti is absent.
> actually do
things like hot clustering and background defragmentation that should,
in theory, help keep things running nicely for quite some time.
As with cooking, 'clean-as-you-go' is more efective than leaving a mess for
later, so far better to not fragment in the first place.
Ergo not an issue here (hpfs, jfs2, ufs, ufs2).
And, JFWIW, Mac's UFS supports Inferno-for-OS X just fine. So AFAIK,
a Mac with
one or more UFS partitions might not have as great a need for FUSE.
I've never had a problem on Mac OS X using Inferno with HFS+, but I
see very little that makes this invalidate uses for FUSE.
Of course your usage may differ from mine, and likely does :-)
Dave
My impressions of Inferno are that it seems to not be about the VM or even Limbo
per se, but those as a means to the end of making the Plan9 concepts more easily
integrated with, and propagated to, the 'rest of the world'
I respect that (apparent) goal.
But hardware is cheap enough, and x86 ubiquitous enough to JFDI with 'native'
Plan9.
At least for now...
;-)
Bill
