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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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:2005-11-10
ZFS does not support per user or per group quota.
So for users you would have to make their own filesystem for each user to control space. A BIG headache. And plus not easy to adjust on the fly like normal quotas.
And for groups you have nothing?? No ability to quota by group at all.
So as a file server in an enterprise I would choose Windows or Linux (XFS or JFS) for that (Or Solaris with it's default file system)
And you are right about the ACL's. I have been reading in the open solaris fourms that the ACL implimentation could be better and has some issues.
(Looking for links to share)
Also does anyone know if ZFS is Journaling?
Also, XFS is pretty sweet, it can support Volumes up to 8 EIB (ZFS supports 16) That is what I tend to use on Linux if not Jfs.
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
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.
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:2005-11-10
"What ZFS offers not only brings it up to NTFS standards, but exceeds it in term so performance and reliability."
What you imply here is that NTFS is high standard. And that ZFS and other file systems had to be brought up to the NTFS standard and that ZFS is the only one that passes NTFS standards. And the HFS+ doesn't meet that standard.
Just like you I have used Mac OS X since the beginning and I have never had a problem with HFS+. I have never had to worry about chkdsk, or defrag problems. NEVER had a problem with HFS+ partitions showing up as needed to be reformatted out of the blue (Like I have had with NTFS partitions on 2000 and XP)
Also if you READ what I wrote I said that "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." I also said "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. "
Since MacPro users make up a small amount of Mac users my 2% statement covers them. On top of that I am sure it wont kill people to have the boot drive not part of the RAID. Most of the time when you make a machine with Raid you don't include your boot drive in the raid configuration.
Also "Databases are generally done on raw devices - no file systems required." Yes on high end databases this is true. But most companies and orgs don't run all or even most of their databases on high end machines or storage arrays. I work for the federal government and for some of our databases we run them on Net App or EMC storage arrays. But most of the databases are run on AIX or Windows servers using standard NTFS or JFS partitions.
Anyway duh, Apple knows that ZFS will help it's high end customers! But their customer base is made up more of Windows switchers, Ipod users and Mac fans then of High End customers. So Apple wants to make sure what they put out is reliable to the standard that they are known for.
And sorry to say but ZFS is not reliable and is very slow on boot devices. Simple as that.
"you seem to make the same bigoted statements that all anti-Mac people make - that those who use Mac are obviously clueless morons." And Duh, I am not Anti Mac at all, I have made NO Anti Mac statements. My statements are about the reliability of ZFS for the regular user! Which has nothing to do with Apple or the Mac. And I am actually touting the reliability of HFS+ which is all about the Mac and Apple. So YOU might want to read first.
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. :-(