Plus, since the day they added journaling to HFS+, I haven't lost a single byte of data due to corruption of any kind.
I've had drives failed, where I lost a day's data (Was traveling and away from my time machine drive) and that sucked.
But near as I can tell, beyond losing short periods of work due to catastrophic failures of drives (early SSDs were problematic!) I haven't lost any data since Journalling was added (of course, Time Machine has saved my bacon from drive failures.)
I think Apple has done a really great job in this regard. Yes, HFS+ is based on filesystem work going back to the original Macintosh, but in use it's working fine.
I've had HFS+ corrrupt my TimeMachine partition, and Disk Utility was unable to repair it. DiskWarroir was no use as the volume was too big (the new 64-bit version addresses this).
HFS+ is still unreliable. The journalling is only for file system meta data. The data in the files is not journaled or checksumed, and can be corrupted without detection.
I experience HFS+ corruption frequently on my TimeMachine disk. There's nothing wrong with with the disk, it's the file system causing it. Disk Utiliy is usually able to repair it, but I did loose some backups once.
How are you verifying that you've never lost a byte of data? What makes you so sure?
I've had drives failed, where I lost a day's data (Was traveling and away from my time machine drive) and that sucked.
But near as I can tell, beyond losing short periods of work due to catastrophic failures of drives (early SSDs were problematic!) I haven't lost any data since Journalling was added (of course, Time Machine has saved my bacon from drive failures.)
I think Apple has done a really great job in this regard. Yes, HFS+ is based on filesystem work going back to the original Macintosh, but in use it's working fine.