[OreoCookie]

FreeBSD 5.0 (currently installed on another machine of mine) does have background fsck and SoftUpdates (similar to journaling for other filesystems).

Steve-o mentioned that MacOS X will have built-in FreeBSD 5.0 and improved support for UFS. Does this include those two features?

[nonhuman]

Panther shouldn't need a background fsck because of JFS, should it? Or is that still not 'mainstream' enough?

[OreoCookie]

Of course you need fsck. If somethings screws up, fsck will restore the data from the journal, if possible. So yes, you really need it.

And it's nice that you don't have to boot in single user mode to do a fsck.

[Ludovic Hirlimann]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Panther shouldn't need a background fsck because of JFS, should it? Or is that still not 'mainstream' enough?

HFS+ has journaling and thus might need some fsck (which will be way faster than it is now (when You do not use journaling)).
UFS wich you also can use is old, and should date FreeBSD 3.2. Most people don't run UFS file systems because Carbon apps do not work on such systems. Actually fsck on UFS is slow. if softupdates has been ported from freebsd then this will be sped up. This kind of feature imho are Xserve/ MacOS X server oriented.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Ludovic Hirlimann:
HFS+ has journaling and thus might need some fsck (which will be way faster than it is now (when You do not use journaling)).
UFS wich you also can use is old, and should date FreeBSD 3.2. Most people don't run UFS file systems because Carbon apps do not work on such systems. Actually fsck on UFS is slow. if softupdates has been ported from freebsd then this will be sped up. This kind of feature imho are Xserve/ MacOS X server oriented.

Well, I work with Unix apps most of the time and I was just toying with the idea.

[clarkgoble]

Actually many Mac apps work with UFS typically as well also. It's just that many programmers stupidly made assumptions regarding case in their code - especially hard coded names - that won't work in a case sensitive file system.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Actually many Mac apps work with UFS typically as well also. It's just that many programmers stupidly made assumptions regarding case in their code - especially hard coded names - that won't work in a case sensitive file system.

Microsoft, anyone

[opsotta]

Panther is said to have a much improved UFS. This is the only file system where they could have integrated the SoftUpdates. HFS+ is totally different and doesn't have room for that technology.

During OS X beta I've used UFS. Since it has to handle two files for every single file you see on HFS it was veeery slow. Of course also much more robust.

Would like to see an accurate measurement of the "new" UFS compared to the latest HFS+ then. On Panther.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by opsotta:
Panther is said to have a much improved UFS. This is the only file system where they could have integrated the SoftUpdates. HFS+ is totally different and doesn't have room for that technology.

During OS X beta I've used UFS. Since it has to handle two files for every single file you see on HFS it was veeery slow. Of course also much more robust.

Would like to see an accurate measurement of the "new" UFS compared to the latest HFS+ then. On Panther.

Maybe I'll give it a shot this week.

[bracken]

It's interesting to note that Panther's clean install lists "HFS+(Journaled)" and "UFS" only.

My iBook, with it's slow laptop hard drive, beach-balls all over the place with journaling turned on in 10.2. ...

... I've been using the journaling on Panther and, I'm very happy to say, it's more than just useable--it's as fast as 10.2 with journaling off. (With my usage anyways.)

Very, very cool.

[OreoCookie]

Security and reliability beat speed any time for me. But a speed-up is always nice as journaled HFS+ is really a bit slower.