HFS or HFS+ >>>

[hornedrum]

I am about to buy the 800 MP mac, and was wondering:

If I have different partitions for MacOS 9.1 and X, how should I format them.
I might just stick to 9.1 right now, and use a separate partition for audio.

HFS or HFS+ ?

Cheers,

Andrew

800 Mhz MP
I GIG ram.
PT 5.1

[galaxiejer]

hfs+

[Slaterman]

DO NOT get a multiprocessor Mac if you're using it mostly for ProTools. I've got a MP533, and it's a headache. PTLE doesn't take advantage of the 2nd processor; in fact, if you leave that processor enabled, PTLE will run worse.

My suggestion: wait a week or two and get the 1 gigHz G4 (they're supposed to be out within a week or two).

I plan to upgrade to the new Macs soon.

Ted.

[hornedrum]

I am upgrading from the 450MP.
Loved it to bits, with no problems.
Got a 800MP for 2/3 of retail price (£2000), with 17 monitor added in.
Couldn't resist.
Last upgrade for a while, so when (or if) digi make it dual processor friendly, it will be the puppies privates!
Andrew

[davidp158]

I just formatted an 80 gig IDE drive (4 partitions) with HFS+. There is nearly a 3 to 6 second delay before recording starts, but I assumed this was due to the IDE drive performance. Now I think this is the downside of HFS+. Time to reformat before I put more time into the drive....ugh!



What should the drives be formatted as, HFS (Mac OS standard) or HFS + (Mac OS extended)?

Either HFS or HFS + is supported in Pro Tools 5.0 and up. However, for compatibility with older versions of Pro Tools (prior to 5.0), drives should be formatted as HFS (Mac OS standard).
Due to the greater number of allocation blocks with HFS+, you will experience longer "prime times" when recording. In other words, you will experience a delay between the time you initiate recording and the time recording actually gets underway. Other than that, there is no perceivable difference in performance between HFS+ and HFS.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Digidesign:
Here's some information that might be useful:
http://answerbase.digidesign.com/detail.cf m?DID=3992<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The info in the Digi answerbase:

[davidp158]

The info in the Digi answerbase:


What should the drives be formatted as, HFS (Mac OS standard) or HFS + (Mac OS extended)?
Either HFS or HFS + is supported in Pro Tools 5.0 and up. However, for compatibility with older versions of Pro Tools (prior to 5.0), drives should be formatted as HFS (Mac OS standard).
Due to the greater number of allocation blocks with HFS+, you will experience longer "prime times" when recording. In other words, you will experience a delay between the time you initiate recording and the time recording actually gets underway. Other than that, there is no perceivable difference in performance between HFS+ and HFS.

[galaxiejer]

okay...the original question pertained to both an audio partition and partitions for OS9 and X...for the audio partition it appears to be debatable...but for the OS9 and OSX partitions you'll be better off with HFS+ (don't even consider the UFS format for OSX...i've heard it causes problems as it's case sensitive whereas both HFS and HFS+ are not).

[M Lawrence]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by galaxiejer:
okay...the original question pertained to both an audio partition and partitions for OS9 and X...for the audio partition it appears to be debatable...but for the OS9 and OSX partitions you'll be better off with HFS+ (don't even consider the UFS format for OSX...i've heard it causes problems as it's case sensitive whereas both HFS and HFS+ are not).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


if you're indicating that you are putting an audio partition on the same drive as an os or 2, you're screwed. you only get to pick 1 format. go for hfs+.

[M Lawrence]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by galaxiejer:
hfs+<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


that's debatable, and i'm still not convinced, either way. as a former pc user, i was led to believe that audio preferred larger blocks, hence the audio drive would perform better formatted at fat16, at the expense of hard drive space, of course. i believe it to be the same for hfs & hfs+. though software may be better designed at present to deal with shorter blocks to the point where this might not matter anymore, i doubt this changes my 1st supposition. if you do searches, you'll find testimonials on both sides. does anyone have the final answer to the question, as pertains to performance (& not drive startup time in hfs+)?


ml

[Avid]

Here's some information that might be useful:
http://answerbase.digidesign.com/detail.cfm?DID=3992