Claude M. Schrader on 20 Mar 2008 08:23:21 -0700

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] ext2 vs hfs+

On 03:09 Thu 20 Mar     , wrote:
> In my organization, I have an underutilized Rorke Galaxy 1TB RAID (RAID 5) built on ext2 filesystem.  I managed to mount the array to my Mac G5 via a fiber channel connection with this:
> I had some device-wide permissions changes to make, but so far this seems pretty solid.  The only snag I have hit is of human origin, namely convincing a coworker that ext2 is just as solid (if not more) as HFS+, the filesystem native to OSX.  His main concern is in relation to retention of resource forks associated with files generated by OSX boxes, and how those would be managed on ext2.  I believe he was confusing filesystem functionality with filesharing protocols, namely the limited functionality of Samba for OSX vs AFP, as OSX's GUI favors AFP.
> Anyone out there ever mount ext2 LOCALLY to a non-Linux OS?  Any war stories to tell?
> Cheers,
> _md

Your coworker is right....sort of. HFS+ has naitive support for resource
forks in the filesystem, which other filesystems do not. Using ext2, you
will loose any info stored in them. This person is a long time mac user
I take it? The catch is, Apple has been discouraging developers from depending
on resource forks since OSX was released. Unless there is some very
old, or poorly written app they are using, most likely there will be
no problem with doing it this way as long as files are properly named with
3 letter file extensions. If there are files without extensions, the OS
may have trouble sorting out what app opens what filetype? I have not done
this in a few years with OSX, so it may not be an issue any longer.

Since it is already set up with ext2, give it a try for a week and see
if they have any problems. Also keep in mind ext2 is not journaled, and
HFS+ is.

Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --