What are the pro's and cons of HFS+ as opposed to UFS. Are there any particular applications which either is more suitable for (apart from the OS 9 compatibility part).
Practically speaking there really isn't any reason to use UFS currently. A lot of the benefits of UFS Apple has left out (soft updates) so far.
The one issue that can crop up and may force you to head to a UFS disk is case-sensitivity. Some programs have trouble compiling on a non-UFS disk due to the lack of case-sensitivity in HFS+. In those cases you can always create a disk image though.
The other noteable one would be HFS+ has metadata.
I'd be interested to see Apple's next file system. It need case-sensitivity but it also needs to lose that if need be for the sake of user-friendliness.
UFS is not by any definition a preferred filesystem for OSX. It causes problems with many Carbon apps (I know for a fact the Adobe apps won't run), is reportedly slower at both reads and writes, can't run Classic, can't store file metadata (such as type/creator codes), and is the root of oodles of other problems.
<strong>In almost all cases, UFS == bad mojo.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quite so... two of my office-mates have had problems launching Mozilla, while I've never had any problems with it on any of my Macs. Turns out that the only thing their system have in common was... (drum roll please)... you guessed it: UFS.
<strong>UFS is not by any definition a preferred filesystem for OSX. It causes problems with many Carbon apps (I know for a fact the Adobe apps won't run), is reportedly slower at both reads and writes, can't run Classic, can't store file metadata (such as type/creator codes), and is the root of oodles of other problems.
In almost all cases, UFS == bad mojo.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Last year, when I tried out UFS, I was able to run Classic, albeit slower than HFS+. I did run into a lot a apps that don't run, and also, the HDD must be named "/". I reformatted after about a week.
Comments
The one issue that can crop up and may force you to head to a UFS disk is case-sensitivity. Some programs have trouble compiling on a non-UFS disk due to the lack of case-sensitivity in HFS+. In those cases you can always create a disk image though.
The other noteable one would be HFS+ has metadata.
I'd be interested to see Apple's next file system. It need case-sensitivity but it also needs to lose that if need be for the sake of user-friendliness.
Anyway you can always look <a href="http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Essentials/SystemOverview/FileSystem/Differences_HFS_and_UFS.html"; target="_blank">here.</a>
Apple has a TIL about it here:
<a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25316"; target="_blank">Mac OS X 10.0: Choosing UFS or Mac OS Extended (HFS Plus) Formatting</a>
In almost all cases, UFS == bad mojo.
<strong>In almost all cases, UFS == bad mojo.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quite so... two of my office-mates have had problems launching Mozilla, while I've never had any problems with it on any of my Macs. Turns out that the only thing their system have in common was... (drum roll please)... you guessed it: UFS.
<strong>UFS is not by any definition a preferred filesystem for OSX. It causes problems with many Carbon apps (I know for a fact the Adobe apps won't run), is reportedly slower at both reads and writes, can't run Classic, can't store file metadata (such as type/creator codes), and is the root of oodles of other problems.
Apple has a TIL about it here:
<a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25316"; target="_blank">Mac OS X 10.0: Choosing UFS or Mac OS Extended (HFS Plus) Formatting</a>
In almost all cases, UFS == bad mojo.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Last year, when I tried out UFS, I was able to run Classic, albeit slower than HFS+. I did run into a lot a apps that don't run, and also, the HDD must be named "/". I reformatted after about a week.