HFS an UFS formatting on OSX
December 7, 2003 2:17PM
edited January 2014
Which is better? or is that not an issue. will osx apps work in UFS format? like adobe software and other big names etc. Ive read different things, but am still clueless
Reply 1 of 3
December 7, 2003 2:49PM
UFS not a good idea unless you're a UNIX geek. Not everything will work.
Reply 2 of 3
December 8, 2003 8:57AM
I am going to second the recommendation to stay away from UFS... there is simply no advantage and a number of downsides to it (at least in the MacOS X implementation). And with case-sensitive HFS+ (optional on server, and can be kludged into client), even that (spurious) advantage is gone.
Note: I see case-sensitivity (not case preserving), to be a historical mistake that has been preserved in many UNIX filesystems for compatibility reasons. It only opens you up to confusion and mistakes, while adding no real features.
Reply 3 of 3
December 8, 2003 12:20PM
i'll resonate with everyone else, and say go with hfs+. the only real difference i know of between them, is case sensitivity. HFS+ doesn't differentiate between files named "tEsT" and "test". Well, it does to some degree, like if you save a file as "tEsT" it will preserve the casing, but if you then try to save a file named "test" it will ask to overwrite "tEsT". UFS will differentiate in virtually every way between "tEsT" and "test". There are some issues (i think most have work arounds) that arise from using a case-sensitive file system. In general, you'll avoid a few headaches if you just go with HFS. Unless you know a good reason to, you shouldn't go with UFS.