Mark C. Ballew wrote:
> Tue, 2005-04-19 at 15:44 -0700, Tim Hammerquist wrote:
> > [1] OS X's HFS+ is a journaling filesystem that supports the UTF-8
> > charset for filenames. It's not really great as far as performance,
> > being on par with ext3 in my experience, but Apple needed
> > a filesystem that would support resource forks a la classic HFS.
>
> OS X does offer UFS, but [...] It also doesn't work with a lot of OS
> X native apps.
Yeah, any app that relies on the traditional Mac OS resource forks will
have issues (be they small or large) if used with a UFS filesystem.
However, there shouldn't be any issues as longs as UFS isn't used for
any system folders or apps (where "app" is any directory whose name ends
in ".app" and whose directory structure and contents match that used by
Mac OS X self-contained apps.
> HFS + appears slow to me, much like ext2. The FFS BSD system "feels"
> faster with soft updates on in Open and FreeBSD, but I have no
> benchmarks to prove any of this.
I never noticed ext2 to be that slow. It's certainly faster than any of
the journaling linux offerings. Perhaps it was every single linux
program you ran having to dynamically link against glibc that made it
seem slow compared to the BSDs linking against the much more trim libc?
Tim
--
Quite frankly, I found it mostly interesting in a Jerry Springer kind of way.
White trash battling it out in public, throwing chairs at each other.
SCO crying about IBM's other women. ... Fairly entertaining.
-- Linus Torvalds on IBM v. SCO suit
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
