[Ti] Disk formats

[Glenn L. Austin]

on 7/18/04 10:01 AM, Ken Johnson at kr-johnson at comcast.net wrote:

> That article only applies to 10.2.8 and earlier.  Are there any reasons
> to pick one or the other after 10.3?  As I said earlier, Airport works
> fine on 10.3.4 UFS.

>From a usage standpoint, probably there isn't *too* much difference.

However, I don't think that UFS is journalled, while HFS+ now is.  Just from
that standpoint, I would use HFS+ (even though Mac OS X is incredibly
stable, I am having problems with sleep when just closing the lid on my
AlBook, once I have a break, I'm going to take it in and have Apple look at
it).  Another reason is that moving files *may* be problematic, as each file
is broken into two files on UFS -- one visible, and another that is
invisible (._filename) that contains the second part of the
AppleDouble-formatted file.

The one real advantage to UFS now is that the resource fork is "right out
there" where command-line utilities can get at it, while HFS+ requires using
the "named fork" method, or the utility needs to know about HFS+ multi-fork
files.  At this point, I don't necessarily consider the case-sensitive
nature of UFS an "advantage" since you really shouldn't have multiple files
with the same name, differing only in case of one or more characters.
 
-- 
Glenn L. Austin <><
Computer Wizard and Race Car Driver
<glenn at austin-home.com>
<http://www.austin-home.com/glenn/>