From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <460EAB44.80607@conducive.org>
Date: Sun,  1 Apr 2007 02:41:08 +0800
From: W B Hacker <wbh@conducive.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
	rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061030 SeaMonkey/1.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Fwd: Reading from FS with inaccurate file sizes?
References: <8ccc8ba40703290259n4a37e06dmae77b3854b81c9a6@mail.gmail.com>	<1175165973.125111.238770@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>	<460BC0ED.7070101@conducive.org>
	<3e1162e60703300709u46dd2e29m553ddc5038a321df@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60703300709u46dd2e29m553ddc5038a321df@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 386e62bc-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

David Leimbach wrote:
> On 3/29/07, W B Hacker <wbh@conducive.org> wrote:

*snip* (ufs on mac vs hfs+)

>> BSD-compatible filenames as well as a faster fs.
> 
> Got some numbers to back that up?

Unfortunately not.

I used hfs+ for several months, and (coming off hpfs-386, jfs, and ufs) was 
convinced it was naught but the dying embers of the 'Woz machine' era.

Odd-man-out in any case.

I use ufs so the the detachable HDD and flash are readable across the rest of my 
environment.

Right after the change, it seemed the lowly 1 GHz G4 was on steroids, and I've 
seen the same 'perceived' speedup on 2 OSX 10.3X and 4 10.4X Mac Mini as well, 
though I've retained a largish hfs+ partition on those to support VPC & such.

 > Or links?

Most of the links I found while researching and planning the change were in the 
10.1 era.

 > I'm curious.  Because
> HFS's many variations

- don't forget that some 'hfs' are the Hewlett-Packard File System, not related, 
AFAIK, while others are not relevant to modern device sizes.

 > (some of which ARE case sensitive)

Yes and no. Case-preserving (finally) yes. Sort of.

Case-agnostic, and - as importantly, since I work in Chinese AND not just UTF-8, 
- *encoding-agnostic*, it is not.

There are some comparisons at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

Fossil is covered, Venti is absent.

 > actually do
> things like hot clustering and background defragmentation that should,
> in theory, help keep things running nicely for quite some time.
> 

As with cooking, 'clean-as-you-go' is more efective than leaving a mess for 
later, so far better to not fragment in the first place.

Ergo not an issue here (hpfs, jfs2, ufs, ufs2).

>>
>> And, JFWIW, Mac's UFS supports Inferno-for-OS X just fine.  So AFAIK, 
>> a Mac with
>> one or more UFS partitions might not have as great a need for FUSE.
> 
> I've never had a problem on Mac OS X using Inferno with HFS+, but I
> see very little that makes this invalidate uses for FUSE.
> 
> Of course your usage may differ from mine, and likely does :-)
> 
> Dave
> 

My impressions of Inferno are that it seems to not be about the VM or even Limbo 
per se, but those as a means to the end of making the Plan9 concepts more easily 
integrated with, and propagated to, the 'rest of the world'

I respect that (apparent) goal.

But hardware is cheap enough, and x86 ubiquitous enough to JFDI with 'native' Plan9.

At least for now...


;-)

Bill