UFS: What are the benefits over HFS+?

in Genius Bar edited January 2014
[This question has bugged me since Mac OS X' release.]

Let's say that I do not need Classic, what gains would I have if I reinstalled OS X on UFS? I have read that UFS is case sensitive, and that Classic won't run on UFS ('Universal File System', I think), but there must be some reason why UFS is an option, right?

So, can any Genius tell us the real differences between the two? What are the advantages to going to UFS for OS X? I only ask because I now go weeks without restarting in OS 9, and am prepared to remove it altogether.

Thanks, gordy.


  • Reply 1 of 2
    UFS is just there for geeks and old NeXTies.

    I've heard that OSX is MUCH slower on a UFS disk... though, I'm not sure why.
  • Reply 2 of 2
    UFS is Apples implementation of FFS within the virtual node/ virtual file system (vnode/vfs) framework.

    As Apple has the option for UFS and HFS+ I assume HFS+ is not HP's implementation of UFS also called HFS.

    I think HFS+ identifies its files among the blocks via a linked table opposed to UFS which uses indexing (I'm not sure on HFS+ as I have only recently been awoken to the wonderful world of Mac).

    UFS on BSD, HP, Sun etc can generally be tuned to perform nearly as well as a journalling filesystem althought this depends on how and what is stored. Most people don't even know that you can tune UFS.

    I don't really see why 10 should run slower on UFS than on HFS unless it has been badly implemented (which I doubt). As 10 uses a swap or page file for swapping I would recommend this be put on at least a different partion but a separate disk would be even better. Not that you should be swapping anyway.

Sign In or Register to comment.