Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jun 2007 20:33 UTC
Mac OS X The yes-no-yes-no saga concerning ZFS in Leopard continues as Apple has released a new statement concerning the availability of ZFS in Leopard. So, let's recap: in April 2006, Apple expresses its interest in Sun's ZFS for the first time. After a first hint, the first screenshot popped up which showed ZFS on Leopard, followed by the definitive proof Leopard could create ZFS disk images. Fast forward six months, and Sun's Jonathan Schwartz announces that ZFS would be Leopard's default filesystem; a statement contradicted by an Apple official yesterday. In fact, this Apple official said ZFS would not be in Leopard at all. Then we arrive at today, and we have Apple stating that ZFS will in fact be included as a limited option in Leopard, only from the command line, read-only. Let's see what tomorrow will bring.
Order by: Score:
RE
by Kroc on Wed 13th Jun 2007 20:54 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

If the Leopard beta handed out at WWDC does not have ZFS as default file system, then it won't be default in Leopard on launch -

A new filesystem could break a lot of apps, and developers would need to be able to work against ZFS to fix bugs before October.

So it's more likely to be in the Leopard+1 / XI timeframe. Apple simply doesn't appear to have enough engineering focused on Leopard to implement bootable ZFS. It's already been delayed because of the iPhone.

Reply Score: 5

RE
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 14th Jun 2007 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

A new filesystem could break a lot of apps


Only apps that directly access/manipulate the filesystem, AFAIK. It shouldn't have any impact on userland apps, their interactions with the filesystem should be done through the VFS layer.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by anevilyak on Thu 14th Jun 2007 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

Yes and no. For instance, HFS+ is to my knowledge case-insensitive. As a consequence, a lot of apps assume that and thus break hardcore when you put UFS under them, even though they don't directly access the FS.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 14th Jun 2007 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I hadn't thought of that, although I can imagine case-sensitivity being one of the things that would be difficult to abstract through VFS.

Out of curiosity, what sort of breakage happens? The only scenario I can imagine is the reverse - E.g., if an app were written to assume case-sensitivity and contained separate files called "README" and "readme" for some reason, I can see that being problematic in on a case-insensitive FS.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by evangs on Thu 14th Jun 2007 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Unreal Tournament 2004 does not run when you install it on a UFS system. Just one example of an application that fails to run on UFS.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by Jesuspower on Thu 14th Jun 2007 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE"
Jesuspower Member since:
2006-01-28

Quite a few applications become unstable or refuse to run under case-sensitive HFS+.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by parrotjoe on Thu 14th Jun 2007 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE"
parrotjoe Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought HFS+ was not case sensitive??????

Reply Score: 1

RE
by godawful on Thu 14th Jun 2007 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

it is by default, but it also supports case sensitivity

Reply Score: 1

RE
by deb2006 on Thu 14th Jun 2007 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE"
deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

Not even SUN has bootable ZFS - at least not officially. Yes, you can have it - with a script and with no option to upgrade that system. And, even worse: Not even the Solaris installer knows anything about zfs - heck, it doesn't even know the "logging" option for ufs.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by jziegler on Thu 14th Jun 2007 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE"
jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

AFAIK since Solaris 9, definitely in Solaris 10, UFS is "logging" by default. Empirical data: I have no mention of "logging" in /etc/vfstab on my numerous Solaris 10 machines and all the filesystem says "/dev/XY is logging" during mount.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by deb2006 on Thu 14th Jun 2007 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE"
deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

Nope - default for your root drive under Solaris' ufs does not include the "logging" option.

Edited 2007-06-14 14:45

Reply Score: 1

RE
by jziegler on Thu 14th Jun 2007 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE"
jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

You sure?

-bash-3.00# mount | grep "/ "
/ on /dev/dsk/c3t2d0s0 read/write/setuid/devices/intr/largefiles/logging/xattr/onerror=panic/ dev=840140 on Wed Jun 13 14:22:49 2007
-bash-3.00# grep log /etc/vfstab
-bash-3.00#

Solaris 10u3, fully patched yesterday. I did NOT do anything about the root FS or logging.

Reply Score: 2

Lets wait and see
by Governa on Wed 13th Jun 2007 20:57 UTC
Governa
Member since:
2006-04-09

Apple has never clearly stated that ZFS would be standard even an option. Then slowly they start revealing what might in fact be included in Leopard.

It is still a better practice than what Microsoft did with WinFS and other of Vista's technologies, promising the world and delivering a totally different beast.

Apple is very cautious regarding these things so we can only wait and see. No point in following rumours or even what Jonathan Schwartz says.

It will have to be Steve I guess.

Patience my young Padawan. :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Lets wait and see
by DigitalAxis on Thu 14th Jun 2007 04:10 UTC in reply to "Lets wait and see"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Now I begin to see their brilliant strategy- say little until you've actually got it done and in your pocket; let outsiders make all the speculative remarks. Then, you've generated lots of hype but aren't liable for not following through.

Microsoft, being somewhat more transparent to the media, seems to have fallen into that little trap of talking about what they're doing and what they'd like to do... before it turns out if those features are actually possible or not.

:-)

Edited 2007-06-14 04:10

Reply Score: 3

Time Machine
by FunkyELF on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:04 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Doesn't something like Time Machine cry for ZFS?
Not that it couldn't be done without it ...I was hoping that Time Machine was just a GUI for ZFS.
It would be stupid not to use ZFS... if they used it, all Time Machine would need to be is a GUI since all of the work is being done by ZFS.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Time Machine is HFS+
by Macrat on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:07 UTC in reply to "Time Machine"
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

Time Machine has nothing to do with ZFS. It works with the basic HFS+ filesystem. It's a GUI for backup software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Time Machine is HFS+
by dagw on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Time Machine is HFS+"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

But the features in ZFS would make time machine far quicker and more efficient. ZFS basically comes with Time Machine already implemented at the file system level. No need to write a snapshot feature in userspace.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Time Machine is HFS+
by godawful on Thu 14th Jun 2007 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine is HFS+"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

I think come Time Machine 2.0 we'll get that, it certainly makes sense.. there just isn't enough time to implement it now

Reply Score: 1

RE: Time Machine
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:08 UTC in reply to "Time Machine"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, I think it kind of went like this (all guesswork, of course):

Apple wanted to use ZFS as the base for Time Machine. This turned out to be a lot of work, and not as straightforward as they'd hoped. Then, the iPhone thing demanded more manpower, and as such, the chances of having a ZFS based Time Machine grew even smaller.

Eventually, they decided to implement Time Machine the crude way, but they left the basic ZFS support already in place in Leopard.

I don't think this line of thought is too far off the truth.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Time Machine
by Kroc on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Time Machine"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I wouldn't call the existing Time Machine implementation /that/ crude. It's just standard UNIX hard links. Time Machine could have been made on Linux years and years ago - the community just didn't have the vision, or awareness of consumers.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Time Machine
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I wouldn't call the existing Time Machine implementation /that/ crude.

Crude compared to a ZFS-based Time Machine. That's for sure.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Time Machine
by korpenkraxar on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

the community just didn't have the vision, or awareness of consumers.

Or time. Or need. Or interest.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Time Machine
by dagw on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Time Machine like programs have existed for years on Linux. Rsnapshot is one version, and I know I've seen others. The only difference is no linux distro has packaged it with a nice GUI and as default feature.

Edited 2007-06-13 21:45

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Time Machine
by elmimmo on Thu 14th Jun 2007 05:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time Machine"
elmimmo Member since:
2005-09-17

For me, it is somewhat interesting to note how the community did indeed do all the hardwork, and then stopped at some meters before the finish line in order to bring it to the masses.

Really, rsnapshot is a holy grail for me. The core features are a bless. Still, where is the UI to specific paths to backup in different places, different periodicities, to report progress, to restore backups, to specify what NOT to backup (and I am talking about tagging files, not about building a crappy text file -such as adding Spotlight keywords to files, on OS X, of "Do Not Backup" or "Do Not Dig").

Rsnapshot is GRRRRReat and easy enough to use as to be a more than suitable for me. Still, I cannot help but miss some features that seem like kids' work compared to what the program already manages to do.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Time Machine
by ubit on Thu 14th Jun 2007 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Time Machine"
ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

How about something like backupPC? http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/12887

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Time Machine
by dagw on Thu 14th Jun 2007 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Time Machine"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

For me, it is somewhat interesting to note how the community did indeed do all the hardwork, and then stopped at some meters before the finish line in order to bring it to the masses.

That seems to be Open Source in a nutshell. The 'hard work' is the fun stuff. Designing efficient algorithms and coming up with new and clever solutions to hard problems. Adding a user friendly and efficient GUI on top of that simply isn't as fun. Rigorously testing your finished app to make sure it meets the demands of your average desktop user is just plain dull.

Still, I cannot help but miss some features that seem like kids' work compared to what the program already manages to do.

The fact that it's 'kids work' is probably the reason it hasn't been done. Kids work means dull and trivial coding. Why do that when there is fun and hard coding to be done elsewhere.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Time Machine
by Mark Williamson on Thu 14th Jun 2007 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

rdiff-backup is pretty similar and has been available on Unix machines for some time. Actually it's awesome software, the guy who wrote it is a very smart chap. Features (that I can remember):

* maintains a mirror-style backup of most recent backed-up copy, which you can access directly as normal files
* point-in-time recovery of file data
* trim history to reduce space usage
* older copies described by reverse diffs relative to the mirror
* handles hard links, xattrs, permissions, etc
* when backing up between filesystems with different capabilities it tries to record all data from the origin, even if the backup FS has less / different features
* you can hard link to revisions in the mirror, and the hard links will continue to point to that revision even when the mirror is updated (works because rdiff-backup unlinks the mirror files then creates new ones in its place)

Basically, it's like an advanced command-line copy of time machine. It lacks a pretty GUI for browsing revisions and / or a FUSE filesystem to access the history. The same guy also wrote duplicity, which does a similar thing but to an untrusted backup server (using gpg, checksums, etc to provide security and detect tampering)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Time Machine
by segedunum on Thu 14th Jun 2007 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Time Machine could have been made on Linux years and years ago - the community just didn't have the vision, or awareness of consumers.

Actually, we do have it. They're called Logical Volume Management snapshots, and they're better than Volume Shadow Copy and have been around for years longer. You can mount them anywhere you like, along with all the usual mount options such as ACLs. Generally, LVM snapshots and VSC are only used by backup software, which is a pity. Software like Bacula (fabulous bit of software) can automatically use VSC for you for Windows clients.

The problem with LVM on Linux is that few people generally use it on their desktop because it isn't really in your face as a default, which is a pity in many ways. It is one of those things that would be nice if you got it for free, along with software RAID. You pop a lovely GUI on that lot and you have it all.

Time machine requires a different hard drive because of the huge number of snapshots it requires, but then again, with read-only LVM snapshots that take very little space, and the ability to restore from them, you shouldn't need an external drive at all.

However, whether Apple uses ZFS or not, it still doesn't get around the potentially huge storage requirements needed. ZFS is not some miraculous cure.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Time Machine
by CPUGuy on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:17 UTC in reply to "Time Machine"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Time Machine is nothing more than Volume Shadow Copy with a fantastic UI.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Time Machine
by fretinator on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Time Machine"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

And a million dollars is just a 1 with a bunch of zeroes after it, right?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Time Machine
by Kroc on Wed 13th Jun 2007 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Speaking of which, VSC only has a basic UI in the Business/Enterprise/Ultimate editions of Vista, which you have to pay more for.

A feature a consumer can't make use of, is not a feature. Time Machine represents one of the best backup solutions for consumers that has ever existed. I can't think of any other system that lets you do advanced meta data queries against the entire history of the backup - not just the current contents, and ridiculously easy to do so.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Time Machine
by Wintermute on Thu 14th Jun 2007 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time Machine"
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

"Time Machine represents one of the best backup solutions for consumers that has ever existed."

Don't you think you're going a bit too far? ;) While I can't refute your statement (I am not interested in that kind of thing), I doubt your knowledge of every computing system/software is that expensive. Just because Windows never implemented something like that doesn't mean there are no solutions like that.

I think you give Apple's marketing strategy a bit too credit. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Time Machine
by CPUGuy on Thu 14th Jun 2007 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

My point is that ZFS is not needed for this, nor was there any hacking that had to be done to get it to work desireably on HFS+.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Time Machine
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Time Machine"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Time Machine is nothing more than Volume Shadow Copy with a fantastic UI.

It's even more limited than VSC/Previous Version, because VCS doesn't *require* a different hard drive. You can use the revision control features of VSC even without backing up to another hard drive, which is extremely welcome when using a laptop.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Time Machine
by memson on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Hmmmm Thom, you must have a pretty hefty hard drive if you have anough space to store multiple deltas of its content as well as the actual files too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Time Machine
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time Machine"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Hmmmm Thom, you must have a pretty hefty hard drive if you have anough space to store multiple deltas of its content as well as the actual files too.

My laptop's hard drive is 40GB, and Vista has a... 30GB partition (iirc).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Time Machine
by dagw on Thu 14th Jun 2007 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time Machine"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

All computers have a pretty hefty hard drive these days. Many people use maybe 20-30GB of their 250GB hard drive. Of that most of it is content like programs which either don't need backing up or never changes and thus only needs to be backed up once.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Time Machine
by BluenoseJake on Thu 14th Jun 2007 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time Machine"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Most of us have huge harddrives, and the deltas are usually pretty small, that's why it only stores the deltas. if you have a 80G Drive, you would probably use only a Gig or three.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Time Machine
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I've been trying to figure this one out. Could you please explain how to set up periodic snapshots of my documents in Vista Business? I'd be willing to set up an external drive to make this work.

I just haven't been able to figure this feature out (so I suspected that it was either not available in the client OS, or that it was a big half-assed).

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Time Machine
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time Machine"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Vista makes snapshots once a day, and to access previous versions of your files just go to a file's properties dialog, and select the "Previous Version" tab.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Time Machine
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 13th Jun 2007 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Time Machine"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

What d'you know? You seem to be right! I was looking for a way to control it a little better than that, but the last time I tried it there was nothing there.

I think this feature is still a little hairy, though, and hopefully it will mature in service packs or at least by Windows 7.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Time Machine
by Lu-Tze on Thu 14th Jun 2007 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time Machine"
Lu-Tze Member since:
2006-01-10

The "Shadow Copy" is turned on by default in Vista Business (which you can access as "Previous Versions" under properties of any file. This is done once a day as incremental backups on the same disk. If you want a complete incremental backup of your entire disk or all user files on another disk, you can type backup in the Start search box. This will get you the "Backup and Restore Center" where you can choose what you want to backup and where and when in successive screens. Hope this answers your question.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Time Machine
by SlackerJack on Wed 13th Jun 2007 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Time Machine"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

I keep hearing this but you see the difference is they put it on the dock right infont of the user with just one click.

You know it's all in how you implement it, if someone does a feature years ago and makes it obscure then it's pretty useless. By the way, does average job use Volume Shadow Copy like Time Machine?, I think not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Time Machine
by milles21 on Thu 14th Jun 2007 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Time Machine"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

What good is VSC if it is implemented in such a way that is not transparent to the users. You can poll 80 percent of the windows base and they will have no understanding of VSC let alone how to use it. The same cannot be said for Apple users and time Machine, with even the normal day to day non-power users understanding it.

two cars can have manual transmissions but if you don't know how to use it what difference does it make you are going nowhere fast.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Time Machine
by CPUGuy on Thu 14th Jun 2007 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time Machine"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Again, my point was not to belittle time machine, though you do have to realize it is just VSC.

My point was this technology has been around a long time and ZFS is not needed for it to work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Time Machine
by Weeman on Fri 15th Jun 2007 10:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Time Machine"
Weeman Member since:
2006-03-20

Maybe. But ZFS would make the job more efficient.

Reply Score: 1

haha
by poundsmack on Wed 13th Jun 2007 21:38 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

nice

http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18079&comment_id=247634

I beat you guys to the punch 2 times now ;) .

more importantly I belive that that OSX 10.5 will be a nice testing bed for ZFS. while the implimentation they are throwing in will have little to no use for teh average end user, this does allow for testing in environments that ZFS is already test up. so at least its a step in the right direction

Reply Score: 1

v Sigh...
by 1c3d0g on Thu 14th Jun 2007 00:00 UTC
RE: Sigh...
by anevilyak on Thu 14th Jun 2007 01:09 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14


We all know they can't compete against Linux (stability-wise),


And we all know that Linux can't compete against the likes of Nonstop or VMS stability-wise, your point?


nor can they compete against OpenBSD (security-wise),


And OpenBSD can't hold a candle to OSX as a desktop OS, so it's relevant to the discussion how? Being a secure server is about the only thing it's particularly good at, by design.


nor can they compete against Vista (compatibility-wise). So really, what the f--k *does* OS X compete against? Absolutely nothing. And that's the damned truth. As soon as their rabid fanboys realize this, they'll be able to join the real world and stop wasting time with a useless company.


Vista can't compete against XP compatibility-wise. Again, your point?

Edited 2007-06-14 01:12 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sigh...
by RandomGuy on Thu 14th Jun 2007 01:18 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
RandomGuy Member since:
2006-07-30

Sorry, buddy, but your post makes no sense whatsoever!

It's not about being the best OS in a single discipline, it's about not failing too miserably in any of these.

I don't wanna use a car analogy again, so let's compare it to sports:
Triathletes usually spend most of their time improving their worst skills.
Or look at mixed martial arts tournaments:
If you only know kicking OR punching OR grappling, you're going down.

That's why it's most important for any (desktop, server is a different matter) OS to work on its biggest weakness.

IMO the various factors don't just add up, they do what factors do: they multiply.
And if one of these factors is zero, the whole product (yet another pun) is a zero.

Besides that I have heard a lot of people saying that Mac OSX was more intuitive and just works, so this seems to be the area it excels in.

But I can't tell for sure, because I have never used it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Sigh...
by makc on Thu 14th Jun 2007 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

you actually meant

#define u8 unsigned char
bool going_down( bool kicking , bool punching , bool grappling)
{
return ((u8)kicking + (u8)punching + (u8)grappling) == 1 ;
}

sorry -.-'

Reply Score: 0

RE: Sigh...
by helf on Thu 14th Jun 2007 01:33 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

*Nice* troll! I give you an A- on that one!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Sigh...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 14th Jun 2007 13:55 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

My god, calm down, computer OS's are not worth getting this angry over.

Reply Score: 2

_yc_
Member since:
2007-04-03

Johathan Schwartz's statement is clear and definitely has merit. I think I'll hold on to Jonathan Schwartz statement until and only if Leopard is released with HFS+ as it's default file system or Apple makes a formal announcement about RTM Leopard's default file system.

The current Apple statements appears to be refering to the past or at best the current beta state of ZFS on Leopard. Apple has not made a clear official announcement on ZFS for RTM Leopard. Croll said: "Where we head in the future, we're not able to talk about." Well, the final Leopard is 5 months into the future so...

...Time will tell.

ciao
yc

Reply Score: 2

Sun's Delusions of Grandeur
by segedunum on Thu 14th Jun 2007 12:22 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I would take anything that Sun says about their technology being in Apple's software with more than just a pinch of salt. Periodically, we always get some Sun technology that Sun thinks is so utterly cool that it should be on Mac OS, and Sun then promptly starts to talk about it in that light. You see, Apple is the 'cool' technology company that Sun would like to be, but knows deep down that it can't.

There is no way that ZFS will be in OS X in any meaningful way (certainly by default, and certainly on the desktop) whatsoever for years, if ever. Jonathan Schwartz's statement that it would be the default filesystem in OS X Leopard was utterly laughable. A filesystem is a critical thing, and importing a foreign filesystem into a kernel and OS that was never specifically designed for it is never, ever easy. It takes a lot of careful testing before you can ever be confident. Apple would be rather incompetent if they tried to do anything like that in the timeframe of Leopard, and remember, Apple relies on people buying the next version of OS X, upgrading without issues and being happy with it. That's just not possible with a completely new default filesystem. Even in the case of NTFS, Microsoft had to make sure you could feasibly convert FAT to it.

Hell, Sun hadn't even got ZFS to boot properly until recently, and even then it's by no means official. I think Schwartz had been taking too many 'Apple is so cool, we want to be a part of it' pills when commenting.

I would imagine that the current Apple statement is correct. ZFS may be an option in Leopard, but don't expect it to be explicitly integrated into OS X where people are encouraged to use it, and do not expect to be able to write to it. Don't get too excited, in short. Many such options have been included in Mac OS over the years, and their support and options haven't got any better, UFS being one.

Also, take a look at the article as to why Apple are specifically interested in it:

"ZFS is not the default file system for Leopard. We are exploring it as a file system option for high-end storage systems with really large storage. As a result, we have included ZFS -- a read-only copy of ZFS -- in Leopard."

Asked whether ZFS might be implemented for Apple's Xserve rack mountable server line, Croll said, "Where we head in the future, we're not able to talk about."

They're purely talking about Xserve there, and they're not even sure about that.

Edited 2007-06-14 12:24

Reply Score: 2

regardless...
by tryphcycle on Thu 14th Jun 2007 17:13 UTC
tryphcycle
Member since:
2006-02-16

of what apple says, I beleive that sooner or latter and advanced filesystem WILL make its way to OSX. With apple supporting an awful lot of open source projects, and thier relative friendship with Sun Microsystems... I got my money on ZFS. To me... its a no brainer!

Reply Score: 1

.
by Weeman on Thu 14th Jun 2007 17:41 UTC
Weeman
Member since:
2006-03-20

Someone has to explain to me the enduser benefit of snapshots. While I make use of ZFS snapshots when doing work on various files, I delete them again when I'm done. I'm using snapshots just as anti-paranoia tool against applications possibly corrupting my files while saving (due to bugs or whatever else).

Reply Score: 1