My experience while using hfs volumes under Linux has been mediocre at best. Mounting ro is ok, but writing files to it is asking for trouble.
If you really have to write to hfs partition, then you should make some hfs shuttle partition and keep it for that task only. I do a reformat on this partition after switching to MacOS because I've lost files on the corrupted volume after using Linux writing to it in the past. Having now two machines, I get away from having to do this by using ftp. One thing you can do to find out about the quality of hfs support on Linux is trying to run Norton Utilities and examine the partition you store files using Linux to. The report will usually show a list of problems, some minors, some majors. Not a good thing(tm) Laurent on 9/13/01 9:45 AM, Mike Fedyk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Ethan, do you have any specific information on when/how HFS was corrupted? >>> What kernel versions? >>> >>> I've heard about this problem for a while, but I haven't seen anything that >>> talked about what specific operations were performed to create the >> corruption. >> >> I can't tell for corruption (well, I did _once_ have a file written from >> linux appearing corrupted on macos), but I know HFS has some nasty locking >> bugs. At least on SMP kernels, it can easily lockup the box. >> >> One problem with writing filesystems for linux is that the locking rules >> and the underlying cache semantics keep changing. >> > > Then why are so many FSes supported in Linux? ;) > > Yes, I know that once it has been included in the mail kernel that when > those underlying APIs are changed that the FSes that use them are usually > changed with them... Though, that isn't always the case. > > Mike > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
