> I have to ask: what are we missing by sticking with HFS+, which would > be improved by switching to UFS? I'm asking this question out of > complete ignorance, not some agenda.
Performance (particularly with softupdates), reliability, good repair and analysis tools that are a standard part of the system, low level backup and restore, compatibility with *BSD both at the partition image level and in the backup format (which also means compatibility with Network Appliance backups), multiple redundant superblocks for catastrophic recovery (I was able to get a lot of data out of a disk that had been partly reformatted), ... and no doubt lots of things I can't think of. Plus, I have never known FSCK to fail to leave a disk clean. It may not be able to recover all damaged files, but it has never left me with a disk that still had errors. What you lose: low level support for resource forks and finder info (but applications shouldn't see any difference), maybe case insensitivity (though that can be implemented at a higher level), and it would take some extra bookkeeping to retain some of the special behaviour of aliases. Plus, compatibility with OS 9 of course (though Classic shouldn't be able to tell the difference). Mostly, UFS fails (when it does) far less dramatically and you don't need heroic efforts to get back to a safe state, but it requires some higher level presentation layer to replicate the HFS+ semantics. -- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
