Re: Recommendation *against* UFS
>as for slowness my testing of the beta showed HFS+ to be 10 times
>slower then UFS. a simple chmod on a single file was instant on UFS
>but took nearly 5 seconds on HFS+
Hmmm... Well, all I can tell is you that switching from UFS to HFS+ on my
system amazingly improved responsiveness. My original install took over 30
minutes, my reinstall on HFS+ took less than 15. I boot much faster, and
IE launches in about 5 bounces where it used to take, well, alot more. The
whole system just feels way more responsive.
I popped open a terminal window, and chmodded a file, it came back instantly.
If your experience was with the public beta, I suggest you reevalute on
1.0. The differences I'm seeing are dramatic!
>which is a pretty large drawback which is unlikly to be solved in the
>near future. UFS is supported NOW in linux.
Being as the support is read-only though, I think I'll do just about as
well with an HFS file-exchange partition.
______________________________________________________________________
Eric: I want to live in a world where software doesn't suck //////////
Richard: Any software that isn't free sucks ////////// rafial@well.com
Linus: I'm interested in free beer ///// <http://www.3roses.com/> ////
Reply to: