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 390813
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by dragSidious on Sat 24th Oct 2009 06:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
dragSidious
Member since:
2009-04-17

"
And what you experienced has nothing to do with the HFS+ file system at all. We're talking about ZFS and the memory used to improve performance. It is a known side effect of the file system design - ZFS was never designed to be used in an environment where memory is at a premium.


Of course not. Why would you think that I connect OSX memory usage with HFS+ ? My point is that leopard as deployed on desktop class platforms is _already_ a memory hog in my experience. Thus it's hard for me to speculate on ZFS not making the cut because it _might_ be a memory hog on OSX.
"

It probably did not make the cut because it is not only a memory hog, but because it is slow and does not have the features necessary for compatibility with OS X applications.


Why should a next gen apple FS be required to span all platforms? This is as likely as not to lead to undesirable compromises on both ends, even if it is cheaper. I say horses for courses. (do we buy apple products because they are cheap or cheap to design? does apple pass cheap design costs on to us?).


Apple is good at making slick user interfaces and is good at marketing their hardware.

The original iPhone, for example, had slow and overpriced hardware compared to it's contemporaries at the time. In all respects it was a mediocre product with the major exception that Apple was able to make the interface attractive and easy to use and was able to market it intelligently.

Apple uses HFS+ because a file system is really irrelevant to the sort of thing that people buy OS X for. It does not really matter in terms of desktop user experience that behind the pretty face lies a OS that depends on a file system that is fragile, overly complex, and slower then what is offered by Windows or Linux. So what if your applications take 2 seconds longer to start up and that you have a 15% higher chance of data loss during a improper shutdown?

Apple designed their UI so that you can't really tell the difference either way.


"Anyway, I had hoped for ZFS on the Mac, but I'm just as annoyed that they are removing UFS. HFS+ doesn't even support sparse files.


UFS was a walking disaster area when one considers the litany of issues people had with it. Apple is eventually going to replace it with something that will scale from embedded to servers so that they don't have to have duplication and thus unneeded extra cost. HAMMER will do what you need - are there features missing? of course but HAMMER is in continuous development with the short comings being addressed.
"

If people actually paid attention to Apple's documentation they would of not been stupid enough to try to run OS X on UFS.

UFS was provided for POSIX-compatible file system for things like compliance testing and running database products. HFS+ is NOT posix compatible.. UFS was never alternative to HFS+

Edited 2009-10-24 06:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2