FreeBSD uses soft updates, which are essentially the diametrical opposite of journaling, to maintain filesystem consistency but also to improve performance on metadata intsenive operations. Yes, but nothing of modern extended attributes such as ACLs, which are quite a common feature nowadays. Its implmentation could be improved of course, but that is probably a truism for ANY OS HFS+ is, in absolute terms, quite a good file system.
Os x server upgrade mac os x#
The only thing UFS, in the current Mac OS X implementation, offers that HFS+ does not is CaSe SeNsItivitY. MacOS X suffers from very much less fragmentation than Mac OS, even on HFS+. FreeBSD also gets great performance out of ufs, but is replacing it with ufs2. Sun optimises UFS to make it run very fast, where Linux abandoned it in favour of better (ext2/3, Reiser, xfs) fundamental design. The new Novell NSS is also B-Tree, the old NWFS not. This is considered a Good Thing and is one of the claims to fame of ReiserFS. HFS+ is a B-Tree based system-as was HFS.
HFS+ supports it, as do ext3 and ReiserFS on Linux, and UFS on FreeBSD (but not on Mac OS X). Very difficult to fix without radically changing the file system. Depends on whether fields in the file structure are 64 bits or 32 bits. Mac OS X packages are aiming to obsolete this anyway. UFS simulates this with some artful renaming. NTFS and Novell (NWFS, NSS) also offer this (NTFS allows an arbitrary number of forks). When Apple designed HFS+ they made it able to supoprt all the Unix permissions-long before it was settled that Unix was what the new Mac OS would be based on. While HFS had file type/creator, it lacked all the Unix ‘ownership’ information. cf case sensitive in UFS, ext2/3, ReiserFS and most Unix/Linux FS.Į.g. Case preserving in HFS+ (like NTFS, FAT and others). For example:Ģ55 Unicode characters in HFS+. Some features have to do with how efficient the file system is-how the underling structure is designed.
0 kommentar(er)
