Subject: Re: yellowdog-general Digest 27 Mar 2002 03:19:42 -0000 Issue 730
From: Ryan Mesler (kraylus@airmail.net)
Date: Wed Mar 27 2002 - 17:08:16 MST
from my experiences, ufs is slower in ALL categories.
Ryan Mesler
Technical Support
Internet America
If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0
ICQ: 45088864
AIM: Kraylus
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Silge
To: yellowdog-general@lists.yellowdoglinux.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: yellowdog-general Digest 27 Mar 2002 03:19:42 -0000 Issue 730
What are the speed differences? If I recall UFS does some things faster than
HFS+, and other things slower. I'm not sure what type of activities fall
into those two categories. Are we correct in assuming you can't mount UFS
under Linux?
-Rob
On 3/27/02 3:08 PM, "Richard Petty" <techie@austin.rr.com> boldly
proclaimed:
> I don't know anything about the lowendmac mailing list, but I sorta have
> to speak up when I see rumor replace fact.
>
> For the record, UFS is a fine file system. In fact, I recently
> reformatted an 80-gig drive on my home server, going from HFS+ to UFS
> owing to limitations of HFS+ (and I'm an HFS+ fan!)
>
> My home Mac OS X system boots off an UFS partition very nicely, too.
>
> So far, the major disadvantage to UFS is that I don't get to pay Norton
> any money.
>
> --Richard
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 17:25:47 MST