On 06/09/11 16:34, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Friday, September 02, 2011 12:48:47 AM Ned Slider wrote: >> You should also consider filing a bug report upstream and make a case >> for hfsplus inclusion in the RHEL6 kernel. It's not unheard of for Red >> Hat to turn modules back on that they had previously disabled. > > There be dragons here. > > Be very, very , careful with hfsplus on Linux. I have had more than one HFS+ > non-journalled volume toasted by the Linux in-kernel driver. > > There is a supported commerical solution for HFS+ for Linux made by Paragon. > I've not put it under load yet (load being deleting a few hundred thousand > files in a tree; that sort of operation on Fedora 12 (very similar kernel to > RHEL6) was a 100% reproduceable, nonrecoverable, filesystem 'toast') but plan > to soon enough. > > While I haven't found the documentation for it due to the way kernel patches > are now done, I suspect the data reliability problem is the reason upstream > has disabled it. It works fine for read-only purposes, but I wouldn't use it > for bidirectional data interchange. Or do all of your deletion of large > trees of small files (like trees of source code) inside Mac OS. > > Better for interchange is one of the two or three ext2/3/4 filesystem drivers > for MacOS (I'm using the one from Paragon, and it works well, even with large > ext4 volumes) or using NTFS and drivers for Mac OS for NTFS (again, I use the > Paragon drivers which came with my Seagate 1TB external). > > HFS+ is just barely supported under the in-kernel Linux driver last I looked, > and may go away from kernel mainline at some point. > > So, this is one case to be really careful.
Thanks for the heads up. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
