Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Apr 2006 12:35 UTC
Mac OS X Apparantly, Apple is interested in porting Sun Solaris' ZFS to Mac OS X. From the zfs-discuss mailinglist: "Chris Emura, the Filesystem Development Manager within Apple's CoreOS organization is interested in porting ZFS to OS X. For more information, please e-mail him directly at [email address]. Speaking for the zfs team (at Sun), this is great news and we fully support the effort."
Thread beginning with comment 119470
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Great news
by rayiner on Sat 29th Apr 2006 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news"
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not really. NTFS is actually fairly sophisticated. For example, it was built with journaling in mind, while HFS+ had journaling bolted-on as an afterthought.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Great news
by suryad on Sat 29th Apr 2006 20:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Great news"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

All the merits go out the window when one has to waste time defragmenting.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Great news
by Tom K on Sun 30th Apr 2006 00:06 in reply to "RE[4]: Great news"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

No one said you have to defragment. Out of the 35 Windows users that I know better, only 2 regularly defragment. The other 33 don't have any problems. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Great news
by atsureki on Mon 1st May 2006 16:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Great news"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Not really. NTFS is actually fairly sophisticated.

Absolutely. NTFS is one of the best things MS has ever done. Compression, encryption, journaling -- it's an advanced FS by most accounts. Completely closing off outside support for it has somewhat invalidated that for multisystem users like me, though. Also, I think it still stores entries by filename, so it can't have hard links and just doesn't have symlinks, but the Windows line was never particularly about hands-on control, so few will miss those.

Anyway, the complaint was about fragmentation. I remember how happy everyone was back in the day about how much better the Win2K defragmenter was than the 98 one. NTFS itself didn't help any. MS didn't design around that little problem. They just improved the tool to manage it.

For example, it was built with journaling in mind, while HFS+ had journaling bolted-on as an afterthought.

Successfully, without breaking backwards compatibility. OS9 can still boot from a journaled HFS (but won't access the journal). Let's see 98 even access an NTFS volume. The first version of NTFS is older than FAT32. There's no excuse for the complete lack of included support in the 9x line. But I digress.

Apple has been very conservative with filesystems. Their own HFS is getting up there, and UFS (which they support with OSX) is about 30 years old now. I know Apple doesn't have a reputation for backwards compatibility, but it's very important to them in this case. They'd rather see the user buy all new software and hardware in order to upgrade than lose one byte of data.

With the new Intel Macs, they jumped over to the default filesystem for EFI so they could have nice, shiny software-firmware integration. Apart from that, I know nothing about it. If they're considering ZFS, their comfort with it must come from the fact that Sun is a big name with lots of experience and a reputation of reliability behind it. But I don't think it would ever be used for the system partition (i.e., replacing HFS/EFI in any way.) ZFS was designed primarily for storage. There aren't even any Solares that can boot from it yet. If the post is for real, it sounds like Apple might be looking to sweeten their oft overlooked Xserve / SAN product lines.

I really hope ZFS makes it into Leopard. I'd love to turn my G4 into a low-power (as in, electricity) fileserver once I get a new system. I'd put Solaris on my Athlon server right now if I could trust that I'd be able to add and upgrade software.

Reply Parent Score: 1