Mac mini server RAID, journaled vs fat32?

[kyleo17]

Hello, i realize i am newbie but could use some knowledge laid upon me...I am setting up a mac mini server and am now on my second go round after my learning experience/8 hour battle yesterday with setting up DNS to run locally, properly (got it work partially with the server resolving its dns from the outside, but bc it was not local, open directory became a nightmare)...

anywho, I am reinstalling the snow leopard server os and want to setup the two internal drives (500gb each) as a mirrored raid set...the client machines that will be on the server will be mostly macs, but a handful of pc's running xp...my question is, should i format the drives using os extended, or fat32? will the pc's be able to read and write to the server if it is os extended? and if not, how much space will be wasted by using fat32?

thank you

 

[Intell]

FAT32 should not be used. Will the Windows machines be accessing the Mac over a network? If yes, then they will work fine on a HFS+ file system.

 

[Alrescha]

This question will be answered for you when you try to install OS X Server on a FAT32 volume.

Your client PCs will not know or care how you format your drives on the server. Format them as "Mac OS Extended (Journaled)".

A.

 

[ssmed]

Definitely HFS+ (Apple Extended)

You should use Apple extended with journalling, but not with the case sensitive option. You will not be able to install Mac OS X Server on FAT32. The windows machines will work fine with SMB sharing enabled on the Server. My Windows 7 machine is backing up to the server in this configuration as I type.

HTH

 

[Transporteur]

Mac OS X does NOT run on FAT32, so you basically don't have a choice anyway.

But just FYI, FAT32 shouldn't be used AT ALL, neither on Windows or Mac OS. It's more than 15 years old and can corrupt your system. Besides that, the maximum file size is 4GB, the maximum partition size is 2TB. Simply put, it's outdated and should only be used for small USB thumb drives that need to be accessible for both Mac OS and Windows. If that is not required, always chose the OS'es native file system (NTFS/HFS+).

 

[kyleo17]

thank you thank you, good info, mac os extended (journaled) it shall be...I do have one more question though pertaining to something similar...i transfered all of the users home folders from the older windows server to a mybook external that i did format in fat32, bc i was under the impression the os x server would not be able to see the files in ntfs? it worked, but i feel like i am missing some data...Am i wrong on this one as well? if so, is there a format that both can read and write to besides fat32? thanks again

 

[Alrescha]

If you need to transfer files between OS X and Windows using an external hard drive, FAT32 is the right thing to use. And I feel dirty just typing that.

A.

 

[ssmed]

thank you thank you, good info, mac os extended (journaled) it shall be...I do have one more question though pertaining to something similar...i transfered all of the users home folders from the older windows server to a mybook external that i did format in fat32, bc i was under the impression the os x server would not be able to see the files in ntfs? it worked, but i feel like i am missing some data...Am i wrong on this one as well? if so, is there a format that both can read and write to besides fat32? thanks again

OSX can read NTFS, but without add-ons cannot write to it. The FAT32 option should be fine for that purpose as well.

 

[kyleo17]

If you need to transfer files between OS X and Windows using an external hard drive, FAT32 is the right thing to use. And I feel dirty just typing that.

A.

lol, i know what ya mean, the files were organized terribly (overlapping icons, files spread out horizontally to each side, etc.) and i swear i am missing some files, or some users never stored any of their data on the server...i will have to go back through the old server and check i guess, thanks again guys