Linked by Michael on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 18:00 UTC
Mac OS X "By now you have likely read all about the features announced for Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" thus far along with seeing plenty of screenshots and videos showing off Launchpad, Mission Control, Versions, the improved mail client, and much more. But how does Apple's next-generation operating system perform? Well, here is a look at the performance of Mac OS X 10.7, including what are likely the first public benchmarks of Mac OS X Lion."
Order by: Score:
Cool
by MacMan on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 18:22 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

Cool, looks like they are also looking at performance improvements, and not just window dressing. Apple really needs to dump HFS+ and get a real file system.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cool
by Kroc on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 19:38 UTC in reply to "Cool"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

ZFS would have been it in Lion had not the Oracle thing seen to Apple abandoning ZFS. Expect new file system to be delayed to next release, or much, much later.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cool
by MacMan on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

ZFS is a very nice file system, with some amazing features. I do think that ZFS is more appropriate for a server rather than desktop machines that Apple focuses on. Something like XFS or possible BFS (the BeOS/Haiku FS) would be very nice for OSX.

I think all the multi-volume / disk management features of ZFS would add a lot of overhead, at least in terms of memory for a desktop with most likely a single disk.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Cool
by bannor99 on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

ZFS would have been it in Lion had not the Oracle thing seen to Apple abandoning ZFS. Expect new file system to be delayed to next release, or much, much later.


ZFS is opensource; Apple uses opensource tech. What's the issue?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cool
by rob_mx on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 21:06 UTC in reply to "Cool"
rob_mx Member since:
2005-08-04

Apple really needs to dump HFS+ and get a real file system.


Just curious, what makes HFS+ so bad?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cool
by Elv13 on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

To be short, it's old, so any advances in the last 25 years are not implemented (a few are, like journals, but little). It do have some basic features, like permissions, but thats it. See this Wikipedia article for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems#Features

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cool
by malxau on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cool"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

To be short, it's old, so any advances in the last 25 years are not implemented (a few are, like journals, but little). It do have some basic features, like permissions, but thats it. See this Wikipedia article for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems#Features


And which of those features that HFS+ lacks are really important to Apple users? I'm assuming it's not integrated LVM or dedupe. Apple have full volume encryption, and implemented snapshot-like functionality with time machine rather than filesystem snapshots. So what are the features that users really want that are missing?

Also, note that features tend to move inversely to performance. This thread started about performance, and now we're talking about features.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Cool
by MacMan on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

"Apple really needs to dump HFS+ and get a real file system.


Just curious, what makes HFS+ so bad?
"

1: Performance - unfortunately its really hard to make this quantitative as HFS driver for LInux sucks and xfs / ext3 ... driver for OSX runs in user space, so comps I made were running the same program in OSX, then re-booting to Linux. Anyway, just about everything was faster in LInux and XFS, such as file creation/delete/move and compilations.

2: Journaling is an afterthought. Look at XFS which is designed

3: possibly subjective - but HFS+ is much less reliable than ext4/xfs in the face of bad sectors. I've had sector problems on HFS+ disk on two separate occasions and lost just about everything. When I had sector problems on ext4 disks, lost almost nothing.

4: designed in a different era: HFS+ is basically HFS with journaling. HFS was designed for MacOS 7 or 8 around 1995. Compare this with XFS which was designed by SGI for SGI workstations. XFS design meant to maximize durability and high performance for Irix workstations with fast 32 bit processors and lots of memory. HFS was designed to run acceptably for low memory 680x0 systems.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Cool
by BluenoseJake on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cool"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

XFS was also developed in the same time frame. Your 3rd example is a invalidated by you leaving the dates for XFS out. XFS came out in 1994, so it was designed in the exact same era. It was open sourced in 2000. This makes both filesystems the almost the exact same age.

Also, the 68030 and 68040 are both 32bit chips, and the 68040 is no slouch in the speed dept (though admittedly, not as fast as the r8000, that came out in the same timeframe as IRIX 5.3, the first version to have XFS)

Reply Score: 3

Buggy
by 3rdalbum on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 02:11 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

HFS+ gets corrupted at the drop of a hat. Or, at least, Apple's implementation of it does (more likely).

And when HFS+ filesystems get corrupted, you can repair the damage or build a new filesystem for the volume, but it'll get corrupted again within weeks.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Buggy
by DavidSan on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 02:33 UTC in reply to "Buggy"
DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

That is correct for Leopard and previous systems, but Snow Leopard does not suffer from directory corruption.

Previously, you needed to run Disk Warrior monthly to have a properly maintained HFS+ volume. Since Snow Leopard, DiskWarrior is almost useless.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Buggy
by dvhh on Thu 3rd Mar 2011 06:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Buggy"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Makes me want to build an OSX server ;)

Reply Score: 3