External HDD - FAT32 or HFS?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Accessing an iPod from Windows
Next: selfridges.com
From: Paul Hutchings on 23 Sep 2006 12:03 I can't imagine this drive will be used on any other machines, and I know HFS is journalled so theoretically more tolerant, but is there any benefit in formatting a new external HDD as HFS over FAT32 which is the default? It's for general data storage - ISTR reading something about FAT32 not supporting OS X metadata but I'm not sure what this actually means :-) cheers, Paul -- paul(a)spamcop.net
From: Chris Ridd on 23 Sep 2006 12:27 On 2006-09-23 17:03:21 +0100, Paul Hutchings <paul(a)spamcop.net> said: > I can't imagine this drive will be used on any other machines, and I > know HFS is journalled so theoretically more tolerant, but is there any > benefit in formatting a new external HDD as HFS over FAT32 which is the > default? The only reason to use FAT is if you *know* you're going to physically attach it to machines running other OSes. > It's for general data storage - ISTR reading something about FAT32 not > supporting OS X metadata but I'm not sure what this actually means :-) Stuff like which user/group owns which files, what permissions are on the files, really basic stuff like that simply isn't supported by FAT. Use HFS+. Cheers, Chris
From: Peter Hayes on 23 Sep 2006 12:47 On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:03:21 +0100, Paul Hutchings wrote (in article <paul-5A1FF8.17032123092006(a)news.aaisp.net.uk>): > I can't imagine this drive will be used on any other machines, and I > know HFS is journalled so theoretically more tolerant, but is there any > benefit in formatting a new external HDD as HFS over FAT32 which is the > default? You might find some HFS filenames that contain illegal FAT32 characters won't copy across to a FAT32 partition. -- Peter
From: Paul Hutchings on 23 Sep 2006 12:48 In article <0001HW.C13B2399012C5603F0284530(a)news.individual.net>, Peter Hayes <not_in_use(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:03:21 +0100, Paul Hutchings wrote > (in article <paul-5A1FF8.17032123092006(a)news.aaisp.net.uk>): > > > I can't imagine this drive will be used on any other machines, and I > > know HFS is journalled so theoretically more tolerant, but is there any > > benefit in formatting a new external HDD as HFS over FAT32 which is the > > default? > > You might find some HFS filenames that contain illegal FAT32 characters won't > copy across to a FAT32 partition. Thanks (both of you) HFS "Extended Journaled" it is then. cheers, Paul -- paul(a)spamcop.net
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 23 Sep 2006 13:00
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:48:50 +0100, Paul Hutchings <paul(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >In article <0001HW.C13B2399012C5603F0284530(a)news.individual.net>, > Peter Hayes <not_in_use(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:03:21 +0100, Paul Hutchings wrote >> (in article <paul-5A1FF8.17032123092006(a)news.aaisp.net.uk>): >> >> > I can't imagine this drive will be used on any other machines, and I >> > know HFS is journalled so theoretically more tolerant, but is there any >> > benefit in formatting a new external HDD as HFS over FAT32 which is the >> > default? >> >> You might find some HFS filenames that contain illegal FAT32 characters won't >> copy across to a FAT32 partition. > >Thanks (both of you) HFS "Extended Journaled" it is then. Just for extra emphasis, FAT32 is _the_ lowest common denominator of filesystems. It supports barely anything except filenames, timestamps and file data. Even filenames longer than 8.3 characters are implemented as a nasty hack. It has two copies of the File Allocation Table, but no reliable method of determining which one is less broken if they're out of sync. Delicate? I should say so. Complete rubbish, originally written for 180k floppies with no directory structure and only barely upgraded since. Cheers - Jaimie -- There are no normal people--only people you don't know very much about. -- Nancy Lebovitz, rasfw |