Re: filesystem size vs. physical size

Subject: Re: filesystem size vs. physical size
From: JCS (
Date: Mon Oct 11 1999 - 18:07:29 MDT

From: Jim Cole <>
Subject: Re: filesystem size vs. physical size
Date: Mon, Oct 11, 1999, 6:41 PM

>> I reformatted my 4GB hard disk.
>> Partition 5 is HFS+ (is this the problem?)
> This shouldn't be a problem, at least it wasn't on my machine.
>> Partition 6 is HFS (with small system + BootX to boot into YDL)
> I just put my kernel and BootX stuff on my first (HFS+) partition
> and left a small second partition (HFS) for transferring files.
>> Will the problems go away if I reformat hda and make all my partitions HFS?
> I set up all of my partitions from the Mac side before starting the install.
> This included 1 HFS+ partition for MacOS/boot files and 3 HFS partitions
> (transfer, root, and swap). Then I just selected pre-existing partitions
> during the install.

Which kernel are you using? I thought that HFS+ was not yet supported. Is it
just that an HFS+ (Extended format) partition cannot yet be mounted under

I started by creating two HFS partitions with the Mac Drive Setup utility -
4GB for MacOS/boot files and 2GB for Linux. Then using fdisk during the
install, I created a root partition and a swap partition with the 2GB HFS
partition. But using HFS for the 4GB Mac partition is very inefficient and I
would much rather use HFS+. Would I be able to use HFS+ for the 4GB Mac
partition and BootX?

I am assuming that you use the HFS transfer partition to transfer files
between MacOS and Linux. Is this right? If I use an HFS+ partition for my
MacOS then would I need a small HFS partition for file transfer?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue Nov 02 1999 - 16:20:58 MST