More evidence: "Mac OS X Leopard (Build 9a321) features support for ZFS. The rumors were true, you can create disk images with a ZFS filesystem, well at least in theory, because Build 9a321 is far away from being stable. The DiskUtility itself crashes again and again. Trying to create an actual ZFS image produces kernel panics. There is no pool support to create stripes, mirrors or even RaidZ in DiskUtility yet.
It seems that all the other rumor sites stopped right there, which is why we had to set up this website to show you how well ZFS is already implemented. We show you what works and what doesn't. After reading you will know what the deal is, with ZFS and the upcoming Mac OS."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-08
So do you evaluate all features that you use with operating systems and applications based on maturity level? While ZFS is new compared to everything else, it works!
Read my OSNews article on Solaris 10 6/06, as far as I am concerned the buzz is justified. I am putting systems into production using ZFS because it gives me flexibility that UFS doesn't. The only real show stopper I am aware of with ZFS is using it with SAN devices (which is one of the things I am looking at doing rather than using Veritas Volume Manager ($$$$)).
And while you can dismiss my comment as a "fanboi response", I don't see the point in not using a feature that makes life easier for a system administrator. I am glad Apple decided to put ZFS to use with OS X. What I could see Apple do is wrap the ZFS commands around a cool and easy to use GUI which would make it even sweeter!
Member since:
2006-06-26
There is no war anymore - it's over. And OS X is not really seen as a shining representative of UNIX - by no means. It gets down to two things
1. SUN's fabulous marketing machine considering zfs (and the response of the fanboys)
2. The terrible state the Mac filesystem is in - take anything, it can only get better.
In daily life I wouldn't seriously consider zfs - simply because it has a very short history. In the case of filesystems this can be quite dangerous and difficult to heal if something goes wrong. Yes, yes, there is "self-healing" (another buzz word) - funnily enough the forums of zfs are full of smaller and bigger problems (which is normal - zfs cannot be a rock solid filesystem simply because it's very young in comparison to ext2/3 or ufs).