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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erik Kleinfelder
  • Start date Start date
E

Erik Kleinfelder

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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

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)?
Click to expand...

Sorry, no. I have never used any Apple hardware.
 
Dave Uhring said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Sorry, no. I have never used any Apple hardware.
Click to expand...

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
 
Michael Vilain said:
MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
FATanything.
Click to expand...

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

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

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
 
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.
Click to expand...


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 <OS9Drivers>
[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
 
MacOS require either HFS+ (perferred) or UFS. Can't boot from
FATanything.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Back
Top