Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 7th Oct 2007 23:01 UTC
Mac OS X Developers have received from Apple a 'ZFS on Mac OS X Preview 1.1' package, which offers preliminary support for the ZFS file system, originally developed by Sun Microsystems for their Solaris OS. Currently, the Mac OS is based on the HFS+ file system, but leaked screenshots of earlier versions of Leopard showed options for formatting hard drives for ZFS. Reportedly, this preview allows full read and write capabilities with the latest developer build of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, Apple's upcoming version of its OS X operating system.
Thread beginning with comment 276944
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by FunkyELF on Mon 8th Oct 2007 14:43 UTC
Member since:

I was hanging out in an OpenSolaris chat room when I was trying to set up a zfs fileserver on my AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.33GHz (which won't happen anytime soon because there are linking bugs which prevent non SSE machines from booting).

Anyway, the guys in there were saying I'd be stupid to have a filesever (even for a home fileserver with 2 users) using ZFS without a 64 bit processor and minimum 2Gb RAM (preferably 4).

So, if you need 2Gb RAM for just the filesystem does that mean for desktop usage I'd have to get 4Gb RAM to have the performance of a HFS+ 2Gb machine?

Reply Score: 2

by mym6 on Mon 8th Oct 2007 15:02 in reply to "RAM"
mym6 Member since:

I'd like to see that transcript. That's ridiculous.

Reply Parent Score: 1

by Wes Felter on Mon 8th Oct 2007 16:16 in reply to "RAM"
Wes Felter Member since:

IIRC, Solaris had some bugs where the ZFS cache was sucking a lot of memory. Sun is working on fixing them, but I can imagine that such small machines are not much of a priority for them.

I'm sure that Apple will make ZFS "just work" before they ship an official release of it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

by tyrione on Mon 8th Oct 2007 21:20 in reply to "RAM"
tyrione Member since:

So you need a processor released in the past 18 months, with even a barebones box that has DDR2 667/800 4Gb/8Gb RAM option [Corsair ValueSelect 2Gig kits are dirt cheap], and I'll leave the rest up to you.

Go to Newegg and build a box. If you spend more than $500 you've added extras unnecessary to meet even these offhand minimum requirements.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: RAM
by Wrawrat on Tue 9th Oct 2007 00:32 in reply to "RE: RAM"
Wrawrat Member since:

Perhaps it's just me, but I have a problem with building a brand new box for running a goddamn filesystem. I have always favoured security and data integrity over performance. Still, if you need these specs for getting decent performance, what are you going to need to run services on it?

I expect additional overhead from modern software and I understand their focus on new hardware. It doesn't prohibit optimisations, though. It does spoil my plans from getting a Solaris server with ZFS and Zones on an older box (Athlon XP 2500+ with 768 Mb RAM).

Reply Parent Score: 2

by Oliver on Tue 9th Oct 2007 00:14 in reply to "RAM"
Oliver Member since:

I do know a lot of people who are using it with 32 bit and 1G of RAM - without any drawbacks. Of course it's FreeBSD I'm talking of. Solaris, well, Solaris isn't Mac OS X and it is not FreeBSD. Solaris is sometimes a huge ressource hog.

Reply Parent Score: 2