What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux? - Storage

This is a discussion on What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux? - Storage ; I have an external case with USB 2.0 and Firewire connections on it. I installed a 200GB ATA drive in it. My plan is to use this disk as a method of moving my personal files wherever I go. Work, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

  1. What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

    I have an external case with USB 2.0 and Firewire connections on it.
    I installed a 200GB ATA drive in it. My plan is to use this disk as a
    method of moving my personal files wherever I go. Work, Home, buddies
    house, etc.

    I assume that I will be making smaller partitions such as 3 62GB
    partitions of 4 46.5 (assuming 186GB of usable partition space).

    Anyone have any insight or experience with this? I searched many
    newsgroups but couldn't find any articles attmpted to use a portable
    disk across the OSs I mentioned.

    Are fat32 partitions the best way to go?
    Will all partitions be recognized in each OS?

    Any help is greatly appreciated.

    Thanks,
    -Erik

  2. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

    In article <8d33f13.0406161132.471ed1eb@posting.google.com>,
    erik-google@kleinfelder.net (Erik Kleinfelder) wrote:

    > I have an external case with USB 2.0 and Firewire connections on it.
    > I installed a 200GB ATA drive in it. My plan is to use this disk as a
    > method of moving my personal files wherever I go. Work, Home, buddies
    > house, etc.
    >
    > I assume that I will be making smaller partitions such as 3 62GB
    > partitions of 4 46.5 (assuming 186GB of usable partition space).
    >
    > Anyone have any insight or experience with this? I searched many
    > newsgroups but couldn't find any articles attmpted to use a portable
    > disk across the OSs I mentioned.
    >
    > Are fat32 partitions the best way to go?
    > Will all partitions be recognized in each OS?
    >
    > Any help is greatly appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > -Erik


    MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
    FATanything.

    --
    DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...




  3. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

    On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:45:06 -0700, "Michael Vilain
    > MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
    > FATanything.


    But it also seems to support MSDOS, as do all the other OSs mentioned by
    the OP.

    http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_fs.html


  4. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

    In article ,
    Dave Uhring wrote:

    > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:45:06 -0700, "Michael Vilain >
    > > MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
    > > FATanything.

    >
    > But it also seems to support MSDOS, as do all the other OSs mentioned by
    > the OP.
    >
    > http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_fs.html


    I was aware that MacOS X could read MSDOS disks (that link is great,
    thanks), but I'm pretty sure that the Macintosh OpenFirmware won't boot
    from MSDOS formatted partitions.

    Have you tried it and does it work (that was my point)?

    --
    DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...




  5. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

    On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:37:27 -0700, "Michael Vilain
    > I was aware that MacOS X could read MSDOS disks (that link is great,
    > thanks), but I'm pretty sure that the Macintosh OpenFirmware won't boot
    > from MSDOS formatted partitions.


    I think that the OP wants to use the drive as a file store and has no
    intention of booting from it. It does appear that FAT32 would be the best
    filesystem for his purpose, capable of read/write access by all of his
    OSs, unless MSFT files a patent violation lawsuit against him.

    > Have you tried it and does it work (that was my point)?


    Sorry, no. I have never used any Apple hardware.


  6. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

    Dave Uhring wrote in message news:...
    > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:37:27 -0700, "Michael Vilain >
    > > I was aware that MacOS X could read MSDOS disks (that link is great,
    > > thanks), but I'm pretty sure that the Macintosh OpenFirmware won't boot
    > > from MSDOS formatted partitions.

    >
    > I think that the OP wants to use the drive as a file store and has no
    > intention of booting from it. It does appear that FAT32 would be the best
    > filesystem for his purpose, capable of read/write access by all of his
    > OSs, unless MSFT files a patent violation lawsuit against him.


    Yes, this is primarily a storage device to be moved around. Booting
    from the device will not be a purpose for the device on any system.
    The key here is transport of personal files and a poor mans personal
    backup solution for data across all systems mentioned. I believe that
    FAT32 is best.

    > > Have you tried it and does it work (that was my point)?

    >
    > Sorry, no. I have never used any Apple hardware.


    I'm pretty sure I'm safe with using the disk via USB or Firewire on
    the Mac, and I know it will work with Linux and win2k, I think my last
    battle is the Solaris (sparc) box. If anyone out there has mounted
    multiple FAT32 partitions from a single device in Solaris (or a single
    FAT32 partition since I doubt I'll need more than a few GB, not all
    the partitions), then my dilemma is ended.

    I guess I could just ftp the files from the sparc to the drive when it
    connected to the PC or linux box, but that just feels wrong. :-)

    Thanks,
    -Erik

  7. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

    In article ,
    Michael Vilain wrote:

    >MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
    >FATanything.


    MaxOS X should better be run on UFS. HFS creates lot's of headaches
    because it is not POSIX compliant.

    --
    EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
    schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
    URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

  8. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

    In article ,
    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Michael Vilain wrote:
    >
    > >MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
    > >FATanything.

    >
    > MaxOS X should better be run on UFS. HFS creates lot's of headaches
    > because it is not POSIX compliant.


    Actually, the headaches come from UFS more than HFS+. The only major
    problem is that HFS+ is case insensitive, so some help files get munged.

    --
    DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...




  9. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc(solaris) and Linux?

    On 6/17/04 2:36 AM, in article caronp$f6k$1@news.cs.tu-berlin.de, "Joerg
    Schilling" wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Michael Vilain wrote:
    >
    >> MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
    >> FATanything.

    >
    > MaxOS X should better be run on UFS. HFS creates lot's of headaches
    > because it is not POSIX compliant.


    I disagree.
    It's true that HFS+ is not POSIX compliant but all the important features
    such as journaling, disk mirroring, high performance design is only
    available for HFS+. UFS is just a place holder for full unix if customers
    demand for it.

    -Bruce



  10. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc(solaris) and Linux?

    On 6/17/04 12:01 PM, in article
    vilain-9A27CA.12011917062004@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Michael Vilain
    " <> wrote:

    > In article ,
    > js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> Michael Vilain wrote:
    >>
    >>> MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
    >>> FATanything.

    >>
    >> MaxOS X should better be run on UFS. HFS creates lot's of headaches
    >> because it is not POSIX compliant.

    >
    > Actually, the headaches come from UFS more than HFS+. The only major
    > problem is that HFS+ is case insensitive, so some help files get munged.



    OS X 10.3 supports case insensitive HFS+ just format with the right option
    selected.

    Disk Utility Tool ?2002-2003, Apple Computer, Inc.
    Usage: diskutil eraseDisk [format] newName
    [Mount Point|Disk Identifier|Device Node]
    Completely erase an existing disk. All volumes on this disk will be
    destroyed.
    Ownership of the affected disk is required.
    Format is the specific filesystem name you want to erase it as. (HFS+, etc.)
    You cannot erase the boot disk.
    Example: diskutil eraseDisk "Case-sensitive HFS+" fs1 disk3
    Valid filesystems: "Journaled HFS+" "HFS+" "Case-sensitive HFS+" "HFS"
    "MS-DOS" "UFS"


    -Bruce


  11. Re: What is the best partition type for OS X, Win2k, Sparc (solaris) and Linux?

    > MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
    > FATanything.


    Right, but the way I understood it, the OP is just looking to haul files
    around -- and as far as I know, OS X will mount FAT32 FileSystems. It may
    even be able to write to them, but of the latter I'm not certain.
    Solaris should be able to mount a FAT32 "PCFS" FileSystem R/W without a
    problem.

    Now when you wrote UFS, does that mean that OS X can mount/R/W Solaris UFS
    FileSystems out of the box? I didn't know that.





+ Reply to Thread