Re: HFS, was EMILE package testers sought
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Brad Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 02:52:21PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > But I remember using HFS+ for a linux root filesystem (around 2.6.22,
> > I was dual booting Mac OS X) and it ended up getting corrupted (a
> > pity, because it was certainly fast enough for the task). I don't know
> > whether the kernel got fixed and I don't know whether HFS is more
> > reliable than HFS+. Regardless, for a low traffic partition it should
> > be fine (certainly worth trying on models without emile support or
> > without SCSI).
> I don't think I would trust it quite that far, and I wrote some of the
> code myself.
I needed a POSIX filesystem, read-write on both Linux & Mac OS X. I looked
at HFSX, NTFS, ext2 for OS X, NTFS-3g/MacFUSE and FAT32 and they all
missed the mark for various reasons. HFSX would have been the best
solution. I imagine dual boot mactel users might have similar needs. This
was an (upgraded) beige G3, so again there's the problem of getting the
kernel back to HFS for MacOS 9 and BootX...