Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 21:13 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Mac OS X John Siracusa, the Mac OS X guru who writes those insanely detailed and well-written Mac OS X reviews for Ars Technica, once told a story about the evolution of the HFS+ file system in Mac OS X - he said it was a struggle between the Mac guys who wanted the features found in BeOS' BFS, and the NEXT guys who didn't really like these features. In the end, the Mac guys won, and over the course of six years, Mac OS X reached feature parity - and a little more - with the BeOS (at the FS level).
Permalink for comment 390760
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not surprising
by Tuxie on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 23:11 UTC in reply to "Not surprising"
Member since:

It would bring low level checksumming with error correction (protection against bit-flips) and super-flexible support for multiple disks.

They could use it to implement a much better time machine with short snapshot intervals, requiring a fraction of the IO-usage and storage space of the current hardlink implementation.

They could also use its support for SSD caches, which means that you could add a small and expensive-per-GB but superfast SSD disk to your storage pool and have your most frequently used files automatically and transparently hosted on the SSD while the less common files are on your large and cheap 3,5" SATA disks.

Reply Parent Score: 4