OT:Re: [OS X TeX] More about UFS

nrich123 at mac.com nrich123 at mac.com
Tue Sep 10 21:23:12 EDT 2002

My understanding is that HFS+ is much faster for find operations because 
of binary tree indexing.. but much slower for read/write operations 
because it does lots of binary tree indexing.

Also, fsck on HFS+ calls fsck_hfs, which is a command line interface to 
Disk First Aid - they're identical.

Standard Unix fsck won't  work at all on HFS+ as the required structures 
are all wrong - you'd get instant complaints about missing superblocks.

And yes, HFS+ is prone to various problems that fsck_hfs, or Disk First 
Aid, can't fix. DiskWarrior can fix much more.


On Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 01:00 , TeX on Mac OS X Mailing 
List wrote:

> Subject: OT:Re: [OS X TeX] More about UFS
> From: "William Adams" <wadams at atlis.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:39:26 -0400
> Bob K. asked:
>> I'm new to the list. So if this is too much off topic, just let me
>> know. I have heard UFS is slower than Mac OS Extended. True? What does
>> that mean? How can a file system be fast or slow?
> HFS+ has spiffy indexing features to optimize for performance / finding
> / loading programs, &c.
>> fsck seems to work on
>> Mac OS Extended.
> Yeah, now that I think about it, Mike Paquette said something about that
> on comp.sys.next.* Not sure I'd trust it to fix things on HFS+
> though---I've already had one disk problem on an HFS+ volume which Mac
> OS X couldn't fix on re-boot.
> William

Mac TeX info, resources, and news can be found at:
List archives can be found at:
Threaded list archives can be found at:
See message headers for list info.

More information about the MacOSX-TeX mailing list