UFS and Jaguar
August 1, 2002 9:58PM
edited January 2014
Can anyone give me a reason why I shouldn't run Jaguar on UFS? I have OS 9 on another hard drive. Would there be any application problems, or other worries?
Reply 1 of 6
August 1, 2002 10:05PM
Mac OS X (10 and 10.1, at least, I haven't heard reports about 10.2) is generally NOT optimal to use on UFS.
Classic won't work.
Many Carbon apps break.
Files with resource forks may break.
UFS has different case sensitivity rules.
Filesystem access is reportedly much slower. (again, I don't know if this is true with 10.2)
Why would you want to use UFS? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Reply 2 of 6
August 1, 2002 10:11PM
By the way, here's a kbase article about choosing HFS+ or UFS. Apparently I forgot a few other problems:
AirPort does not function.
You can't customize a hard disk volume name.
Type/Creator codes break.
UFS volumes do not appear in OS9.
Is that enough incentive to not use UFS?
Reply 3 of 6
August 1, 2002 10:49PM
So what is the usefulness of the UNIX File System on a UNIX operating system like OS X? Why would we use it at all with all these problems?
Reply 4 of 6
August 1, 2002 11:35PM
Simple, you don't.
Reply 5 of 6
August 2, 2002 12:09AM
[quote]Originally posted by jpcrumley:
<strong>So what is the usefulness of the UNIX File System on a UNIX operating system like OS X?</strong><hr></blockquote>Read the kbase article I linked to.
Unless you have a specific reason to use UFS, you should use the Mac OS Extended format since it provides a more familiar experience to Macintosh users.
Is that not clear enough?
[quote]<strong>Why would we use it at all with all these problems?</strong><hr></blockquote>As CubeDude said, you don't have to use it and you probably shouldn't use it. The default option for formatting a drive is HFS+, not UFS. Why? Because HFS+ is the optimal format. Simple as that. Why does it offer the option to use UFS then? Well, the only thing I can think of is exactly what Apple said:
UFS may be preferable for developing UNIX-based applications within Mac OS X.
The only people I could imagine using UFS would be developers and/or hard-core Unix gurus.
Reply 6 of 6
August 2, 2002 11:04AM
I tried UFS a few months ago, and switched back to HFS+ in days. If you think OSX needs a speed boost, UFS is not for you. Plus, some Carbon apps that I needed didn't work.