Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Jun 2007 19:49 UTC
An Apple official on Monday said Sun's open-source file system would not be in the next version of the Mac operating system, contradicting statements made last week by Sun's chief executive. During an interview with InformationWeek, Brian Croll, senior director of product marketing for the Mac OS, said, "ZFS is not happening," when asked whether Sun's Zettabyte File System would be in Leopard. Instead, Leopard would use Apple's current hierarchical file system, called HFS+. The Apple file system was first introduced in 1998 in Mac OS 8.0.
Thread beginning with comment 247364
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-10
NTFS reliable? LOL! You must be kidding me.
HFS+ is fine for the default file system for the client. 99% of people out there dont and wont know what the heck ZFS is and what you can do with it.
For us %2 or so who do know can use ZFS on non bootable drives etc. And I am sure there will be better support for ZFS in Leopard server then in Leopard client.
I think it will be really good for large client file systems. (People who have a LOT of music, MP3's and have external drives) And it's good for large file systems for databases etc. But ZFS doesn't support quotas and a lot of file permission features you find in other file systems.
So on file servers it sucks. :-(
Member since:2005-09-14
I think it will be really good for large client file systems. (People who have a LOT of music, MP3's and have external drives) And it's good for large file systems for databases etc. But ZFS doesn't support quotas and a lot of file permission features you find in other file systems.
So on file servers it sucks. :-(
Um...ZFS supports per-filesystem quotas and NFSv4 ACLs last I checked. Where's the problem?
Member since:2005-07-06
NTFS reliable? LOL! You must be kidding me.
Excuse me, I never said it was reliable - stop putting words in my mouth. Compared to Fat32, it is very reliable. From my use of it with Windows 2000/XP/Vista, I never found it unreliable.
HFS+ is fine for the default file system for the client. 99% of people out there dont and wont know what the heck ZFS is and what you can do with it.
Considering that ZFS will yield a massive improvement in performance, improved RAID capabilities for those who purchase Mac Pro's, you seem to make the same bigoted statements that all anti-Mac people make - that those who use Mac are obviously clueless morons.
May I suggest you do some reading about ZFS, and then you'll realise that it doesn't just benefit technology boffins but Apple's high end customers as well.
I think it will be really good for large client file systems. (People who have a LOT of music, MP3's and have external drives) And it's good for large file systems for databases etc. But ZFS doesn't support quotas and a lot of file permission features you find in other file systems.
Databases are generally done on raw devices - no file systems required. As for ZFS and lacking - what is it lacking? again, look at the information about ZFS; ZFS is different to any other file system - it has new ways of doing old things. Read, Read and Read, then come back and come to a conclusion.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Its as broken as Fat32 was to Windows - it is incredibly precious, and speed wise, it is terrible when compared to ZFS - using it right now on my laptop. What ZFS offers not only brings it up to NTFS standards, but exceeds it in term so performance and reliability.
Now, HFS+ isn't going to be totally thrown out, they'll probably still keep using it for their iPod, but I don't seem them using it anything more than just that.