Accessing UFS partitions from a Macbook

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:56:23 +0200, Tomek CEDRO wrote:

 > If you only intend to use external HDD with Mac use native HFS+ that
 > would dramatically increase efficiency over FAT. You may also want to
 > enable encryption that is not really affecting speed noticably and may
 > protect data on a drive in case it gets stolen.
 > 
 > If you want to work with large files and windoze you may prefer to use
 > exFAT instead FAT32. That would allow large files on a large drive
 > plus (limited) OS interoperability. Except you will really need to
 > wait long for fsck to finish with *FAT. fsck part is important as
 > macOS tries that on automount and you will see no drive after plugging
 > it into USB port before its verified clean.

Thanks for info.  This is mostly for a one-off copy, largest files are 
~200MiB .wavs, plus some .mp3s, .png spectrograms and several programs, 
not too big for FAT32, neither will be a say 96GiB partition, though 
I'll need to limit any compreesed archives to <4GiB on FAT32.

 > True, FUSE gets the job done. And it sucks there is still no common
 > filesystem to work well on all OS. UDF could be the candidate, but
 > still most OS can NOT mkfs nor write including FreeBSD :-(

Considering how BSD-ish it seems in Terminal - df, du and other commands 
working as expected - I was a bit surprised that it doesn't support UFS 
natively, given its heritage.  When I first ran mount it complained - as 
will FreeBSD without an fstab entry - about needing the -t switch, but 
'mount -t ufs' didn't complain about that but a (not) missing directory.

 > Remember about native SSH on macOS (see System Preferences / Sharing /
 > Remote Login) that could give you nice way to get the job done
 > remotely :-)

Thanks for the method .. ssh access was shaping to be my next question, 
sftp -p likely being the quickest short-term solution here, and I won't 
need to scare my daughter by messing around with her precious Macbook :)

cheers, Ian