Mailing Lists: Apple Mailing Lists
Image of Mac OS face in stamp
 
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ref: UFS or HFS+... more efficient?

If you're worried about security and not Classic compatibility, use UFS.

With HFS+, you get a case-insensitive filesystem, which can lead to security
problems...one of which got quite a bit of attention last week.

UFS is slower for most things. You'll notice that. What you might not
notice typically requires less maintenance...less defragging for example.

on 6/20/01 5:55 PM, Glen at email@hidden wrote:

> |- @12:06 PM -0700 on 6/20/01; [Ryan Dary] sent: (UFS or HFS+... more
> efficient?) following -->
>> I am wondering which file system is more efficient and which would
>> be recommended to be used with Darwin/OS X?
>>
>> Of course some may say that HFS+ has better Classic compatibility,
>> but that is not what I mean. I strictly mean which file system will
>> allow Mac OS X/Darwin to function optimally and why.
>>
>> - Ryan
>
>
>
> I'm really not an expert here, so take my thoughts with a grain of
> salt, but I would think that in the Unix universe, for efficiency,
> compatibility *is* the issue. Your decision then would rest on what
> you needed to be more compatible with - Mac (HFS+) or Unix (UFS).
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Shalom!
> Glen
> _______________________________________________
> darwinos-users mailing list
> email@hidden
> http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/darwinos-users

References: 
 >Ref: UFS or HFS+... more efficient? (From: Glen <email@hidden>)



Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations.
1-800-MY-APPLE

Contact Apple | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2007 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.