3 Replies Latest reply: Mar 25, 2011 8:02 PM by MacGunt
MIKEinMICH Level 1 (0 points)
Hi, it's been awhile since i've formatted a drive and wondered if
someone could just clarify a couple of things. On my 2007 Imac
2.16/Intel Core 2 Duo which I use for audio production, I am running
10.5.8 and an application that calls for a dedicated external firewire
drive to use as my "record-to" disk, independent of the internal HD
on which the application resides.

The recommended formatting for the external (which is a 1TB 7200/16MB
Cache Lacie) for this application, is simply HFS+ -- What I did was
format it via Disk Utility as "Mac OS Extended-Journaled" - I also
did not partition the drive.

Firstly, is OS Extended Journaled - the same as HFS+ ?

I just am double checking because there seems a bit of a lag time between
commands (edits and such) within this audio application, and reaction of
the external FW drive.

I cannot run FW 800 speed though this HD is capable yet 400 should be
fine... Also, a bit off-subject but might it be more efficient if I
partitioned the external into smaller segments and dedicated, say a 60 to
80G volume for the audio application? (I don't need much more than that-
the external isn't for storage - more to serve as a 'scratch disk' and
files are created only temporarily in the course of a given production).

Thanks for any thoughts,


G4 Dual Boot 1.25 MDD, TiBookG4, IbookG3, older PMacs, Mac OS 9.2.x, OS 9.2.2. + Tibook-OSX 10.39, Ibook 10.39
  • MacGunt Level 2 (415 points)
    _When Should Journaling Be Used?_

    Journaling is best suited for servers requiring high availability, servers containing volumes with many files, and servers containing data that is backed up at infrequent intervals (nightly, for example).

    If a volume contains read-only data that is not mission-critical, it may not be necessary to turn on journaling if performance is more important than safety.

    If your server contains high-bandwidth usage data files, such as large video, graphics, or audio files, you may want to weigh the benefits of using journaling against the performance needed to access your data. In most cases, the impact of journaling upon data access performance are unnoticeable to users, but its implementation may not be practical for servers where data access demands outweigh its benefits.
  • MIKEinMICH Level 1 (0 points)
    Thanks. I think I'll reformat without Journaling based on what you explain and what I've just read. Thanks for the link... Any thoughts on whether smaller volumes would make any sense to make for
    faster 'seek time' for an audio application that requires maximum speed for fluid recording processes and alot of frequent command sequences? (cut/splice/edit functions)... I know this is rather off-topic from the formatting question but as long as i'm gonna reformat i'm just trying to weigh whether it makes sense to break out the drive into smaller volumes rather than have 1 large TB of space that's being accessed...

    Would welcome any speculation on this...

    Thanks again!

  • MacGunt Level 2 (415 points)
    I don't know. But I can't see any benefit in doing that. I wouldn't think data access is going to be any faster on a 1TB volume than on a 250 GB volume for example but again, I'm not sure.