Unix File System Issues on Mac OS X?

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?"

Comments

HFS+ versus UFS

[Tsk]

First let see the state of UFS in Darwin:
When Darwin was built, Apple used FreeBSD 3.2 has its core BSD os, since then many changes where applied in the UFS code in FreeBSD (softupdates are the ones comes to mind). Since then Apple's version of UFS has not change too much.
HFS+ is Apple's MacOS native enhanced file system. So if you need to run Classic, if you need to run carbonised application that do have a resource fork then you need an HFS+ partition (see Mozilla's readme).
If you're more a unix guy like and want to compile OSS, host some CVS reposiroty then you 'll need UFS.
UFS is case sensitive. HFS+ is not (it might seems to be but is not). I'de say for all macos Apps use HFS+ an create a second UFS partition where you'd put all your unix apps and other unix related stuff (CVS etc ...).
Other references can be found :

1. Open Darwin's Thread UFS vs HFS+
2. Brigging UFS up to date
3. Meta Data in Mac Filesystems

Re:HFS+ versus UFS

[usr122122121]

UFS is case sensitive. HFS+ is not (it might seems to be but is not)

Minor addition to your post: UFS is case sensitive [and as a result has to be case-retaining]. HFS+ is case-insensitive, but is still case-retaining.

Do NOT install UFS

[nachoman]

I thought along the same lines... It is Unix, so UFS should be better... So, I formatted my iBook and went with UFS.

I was wrong. All of the mac applications run much better under HFS. Things like Appleworks need an HFS partition so they work with OS 9 as well as X. And mozilla still won't run in a UFS partition. As of version 10.1.3 (not exactly sure which one I tried) there were still a LOT of problems with UFS. I got a lot of data corruption on my UFS partition. Also, disk IO seemed a lot slower than with an HFS partition. The system kept getting slower and slower.

Finally, I reinstalled again with HFS. All of my troubles went away. In my opinion, don't use UFS unless you have a really important reason to do so.

You want UFS? Here's a trick:

[Anonymous Coward]

I was trying to get UMN Gopherd running on my OS X box awhile back, and one neat trick that was suggested to me by the maintainer of the package that helped was to use the Disk Copy application to create a virtual UFS device. I dragged the files I wanted to compile into my virtual drive, cd'ed into it, did the make thing, and presto: it compiled beautifully. Even neater is that I could still install it into the standard hierarchy, which was hfs+ formatted, and it still ran just smooth.

So my advice is this: format your drive hfs, and when you need to do a project that requires UFS, simplly create a big enough blank UFS drive using Disk Copy, and do your work in it. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

...mmmm... cake.....

Myths and Facts, plus a suggestion

[gseidman]

First off, I see a lot of people posting about how UFS does not support resource forks. This is technically true, but false in practice. Any non-Classic application which reads or writes resource forks will work just fine on files stored on a UFS partition. Same with metadata (type/creator). While HFS and HFS+ associate the data fork with the hidden resource fork and metadata one way, UFS does it another. The resource fork and metadata are hidden and associated with the data fork by a naming convention rather than by an intrinsic aspect of the filesystem.

Second, I cannot recommend UFS for a root partition. Too many installers rely on the root partition being HFS+. They give errors about not being able to install on a "network file system" (which should be possible regardless). I had my system set up with several UFS partitions and no HFS+ partition at all, and ran into problems trying to install a bunch of stuff I genuinely wanted. So I gave up and made my root partition HFS+.

What I recommend, however, is that only the root be HFS+. My /Users partition is UFS. A couple of other partitions are UFS. I ordered an external FireWire drive and the several partitions I will be putting on it (including /Library, /Applications, and /Developer) will all be UFS.

(For those who are worried about /Library being externally mounted -- I haven't figured out what difference Apple intends there to be between /System/Library and /Library since both seem to be used identically, but I have chosen to treat /System/Library as containing things central to the running system such as StartupItems and Extensions, and /Library to be things related to applications, such as Application Support and Fonts.)

To maintain my various UFS partitions, I have an /etc/fstab and run fsck -p in the Disks StartupItem. I've been doing things this ways for months and it seems to work quite nicely. I will mention that I do not use any Classic applications, so having partitions (such as my home directory) visible from Classic is not a concern. YMMV.