Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Jun 2014 14:03 UTC
Mac OS X

HFS+ lost a total of 28 files over the course of 6 years.

Most of the corrupted files are completely unreadable. The JPEGs typically decode partially, up to the point of failure. So if you're lucky, you may get most of the image except the bottom part. The raw .CR2 files usually turn out to be totally unreadable: either completely black or having a large color overlay on significant portions of the photo. Most of these shots are not so important, but a handful of them are. One of the CR2 files in particular, is a very good picture of my son when he was a baby. I printed and framed that photo, so I am glad that I did not lose the original.

If you're keeping all your files and backups on HFS+ volumes, you're doing it wrong.

HFS+ is a weird vestigial pre-OS X leftover that, for some reason, Apple just does not replace. Apple tends to be relentless when it comes to moving on from past code, but HFS+ just refuses to die. As John Siracusa, long-time critic of HFS+, stated way back in 2011:

I would have certainly welcomed ZFS with open arms, but I was equally confident that Apple could create its own file system suited to its particular needs. That confidence remains, but the ZFS distraction may have added years to the timetable.

Three years later, and still nothing, and with Yosemite also shipping with HFS+, it'll take another 1-2 years before we possibly see a new, modern, non-crappy filesystem for OS X. Decades from now, books will be written about this saga.

Thread beginning with comment 590547
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
They used to suppport UFS
by PAPPP on Wed 11th Jun 2014 16:51 UTC
PAPPP
Member since:
2006-07-26

Early on you could install OS X to UFS volumes, I did it with 10.1 or 10.2 at some point just to try. It is also an obsolescent FS, and there were some gotchas like weak support for resource forks and a 4G file size limit because it was an ancient UFS dialect pulled straight out of NeXTStep, but the support for an archetypal Unix-style filesystem was there.

It stopped being usable as the system volume in 10.5 ( https://support.apple.com/kb/HT2316 ) and has apparently been entirely excised as of 10.7, which suggests they did something terrible, either to their VFS semantics or with renewed use of resource forks.

Reply Score: 2

RE: They used to suppport UFS
by p13. on Wed 11th Jun 2014 17:35 in reply to "They used to suppport UFS"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

The main problem was the endianness of this UFS variant. It was/is big endian, where x86 is little endian. Result is tons of overhead.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: They used to suppport UFS
by PAPPP on Wed 11th Jun 2014 17:54 in reply to "RE: They used to suppport UFS"
PAPPP Member since:
2006-07-26

Ah, right, I remember that from sparc/intel Solaris and their different UFS endianness (and other implementation details). Apple's descends from a m68k platform, so of course it would be big endian.

Reply Parent Score: 2

someone Member since:
2006-01-12

According to John Siracusa's review of Lion, endianness has little performance impact.

Reply Parent Score: 2