Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unix File System Issues on Mac OS X?

Posted by Cliff on from the why-have-it-if-you-can't-use-it dept.

rlthomps-1 asks: "I've been thinking about reformatting my Mac's hard drive in UFS, since I've seen the option on the install screen. I was looking for advantages of the Unix file system since it sounds like it would have better performance over HFS+. After viewing this Apple kbase article I wasn't so sure. A test system at work won't install software correctly because the drive name is stuck as '/' among other problems. Why would Apple include the UFS option if it offers such reduced functionality, and is anyone out there using it for non-server applications? What for? Are there advantages to UFS on the desktop Mac OS?"

4 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. ufs not for desktop usage by d0n+quix0te · · Score: 4, Interesting

    it is primarily to be used if you are running a web server. Apache is better tuned for UFS than HFS+.

    Use HFS+ if you are going to use it as a desktop. Many apps including Office will have problems because they expect a HFS+ system supporting Type/Creator info.

  2. I use both at home by SandSpider · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have UFS for my User partition, and all of the rest of my partitions are HFS+. The reason for this is that, if you boot in OS 9, all of your permissions are ignored, and anyone can waltz into your hard drive and play around. UFS isn't readable by OS 9, so no worries there.

    I haven't really had any problems with my setup. Maybe there are some things I'll find the more I use it, but I've had this setup for months, and I haven't really noticed anything. But I certainly wouldn't format my system partition UFS. I tried that once, and it didn't work for non-server use at all. Mostly because, if something went wrong with the hard drive, I didn't have a boot disc that could do anything about it. That probably isn't a problem with things like the new HD tool from Micromat, but at the time it was a pain.

    =Brian

    --
    There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
    1. Re:I use both at home by SandSpider · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is very true. Single User Mode grants root privileges without requiring a password. Being able to reset the password with the OS X CD is also an issue, though one that can be worked around with the new Open Firmware password, I believe.

      Personally, I think there should be a secure option in OS X, that allows you to disable the various methods of password resetting. Of course, the clever and knowledgeable user will be able to bypass any of those, since there's always a way around security if you have physical access to the computer itself.

      Fortunately, my roommates are very rarely that knowledgeable about macs and unix. Also, I don't really have anything of import on my computer. I just never liked pretending to have security that could be defeated by booting into OS 9. It was the same in the pre-X days, where most of the security programs relied on people not having a standard boot floppy. It's just wasteful to have to be bothered typing in a password if the security is too easy to crack.

      =Brian

      --
      There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
  3. Re:Yes advantages by Leimy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well UFS with softupdates would be your friend then wouldn't it. :) I am in the midst of doing some of the research necessary to bring this to UFS on OS X. I have McKusick's USENIX paper in hand... an assload of source to look through and a good dose of coffee/tea [mood depending].

    So far one other OpenDarwinite and myself seem to be interested in making this happen + Jordan Hubbard [who probably just doesn't have the time to help much.]

    Dave