Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Safe to Delete Photos.app?
Date: 8 Oct 2015 20:25:26 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <d7o1pmFfb2kU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <041020152040384688%star@sky.net> <musjev$vt5$1@dont-email.me> <d7gei2FhrjuU1@mid.individual.net> <051020151915375422%nospam@nospam.invalid> <n6udncwyL7XMYo7LnZ2dnUU7-LEAAAAA@giganews.com> <1mbx5ka.pz7x2g1um0byN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> <i4SdnRas79xH84nLnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <5614a26a$0$9311$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> <d7m1u5FubmvU2@mid.individual.net> <D23B25D0.5F738%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <071020152300567000%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D23B3894.5F74C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <081020150013338406%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D23BE07D.5F7C8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <081020151219390019%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D23BFE85.5F82A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <081020151411171897%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D23C02A5.5F850%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
X-Trace: individual.net vQPBmtDVt8jfQLW8LbsX4gGvgLYDP4o7DFZkYsd2PbwB+H6igQ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bRx6ettKbeVgqsu6QreeS2LIT5E=
X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1<n@LQ!aZ7vLO_nWbK~@T'XIS0,oAJcU.qLM dk/j8Udo?O"o9B9Jyx+ez2:B<nx(k3EdHnTvB]'eoVaR495,Rv~/vPa[e^JI+^h5Zk*i`Q;ezqDW< ZFs6kmAJWZjOH\8[$$7jm,Ogw3C_%QM'|H6nygNGhhl+@}n30Nz(^vWo@h>Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin)
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:82575

On 2015-10-08, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/15, 11:11 AM, in article 081020151411171897%nospam@nospam.invalid,
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <D23BFE85.5F82A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> hfs doesn't need to do more reads and seeks than any other file system.
>>>> whoever said that is clueless.
>>> 
>>> Not at all an expert in this area and do not vouch for what I found but here
>>> it is:
>>> 
>>>   <http://rixstep.com/2/20031102,00.shtml>
>>>     -----
>>>     Every disk access on OS X goes to disk twice. At least twice.
>>>     That's right: accessing a file under OS X is slow. It has to be.
>>>     ...
>>>     The implication of this 'caveat' is that a disk access in Mac OS X
>>>     requires at least two searches through the catalog file tree: the
>>>     first to determine the parent folder's CNID (this can be
>>>     recursive), and the second (or final) to find the file once the
>>>     CNID of the parent folder can be concatenated with the file name.
>>>     -----
>>> 
>>> Would love to see contrary information.
>> 
>> it's bullshit.
>
> Could be. Would love to see a good source that shows one way or the other.
> As I said, I really do not know.

Rixstep sells OS X file management and repair software. It's in his best
interests to convince potential customers they need his software due to
"horrible" problems with Apple's built-in software and file systems. ; )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR