Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Apr 2013 21:14 UTC
Mac OS X "OS X 10.9, which is internally codenamed 'Cabernet', will focus on various 'power-user' enhancements and take core features from iOS, according to our sources. Unlike operating system updates such as OS X Leopard and OS X Lion, OS X 10.9 will likely not be an overhauled approach to how the operating system feels and functions." Features for power users and features from iOS? Seems like an oxymoron. Still, if they manage to finally fix the Finder and Spaces, I'll be happy.
Thread beginning with comment 560094
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: OpenGL & filesystem
by laffer1 on Mon 29th Apr 2013 22:59 UTC in reply to "OpenGL & filesystem"
laffer1
Member since:
2007-11-09

HAMMER makes no sense for OS X. Most Mac systems use tiny solid state drives now and HAMMER requires a decent amount of space to take advantage of it's features. Even Matt said when he released it that it needed 500GB or something like that.

What apple needs is a good SSD optimized file system.

I think everyone needs to stop asking for HAMMER or ZFS. If apple does anything, they'll make their own new file system.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: OpenGL & filesystem
by galvanash on Tue 30th Apr 2013 00:21 in reply to "RE: OpenGL & filesystem"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

HAMMER makes no sense for OS X. Most Mac systems use tiny solid state drives now and HAMMER requires a decent amount of space to take advantage of it's features. Even Matt said when he released it that it needed 500GB or something like that.


Don't know much more about HAMMER than a few reads of the docs, but I don't get your argument.

Sure, Apple might want/need to look at an optimized filesystem for SSDS, but that filesystem won't/shouldn't work anything like HAMMER/ZFS/BTRFS and it is a different argument entirely...

Thing is they STILL need a filesystem suitable for large storage pools, something with similar semantics to these modern filesystems - copy on write, data de-duplication, checksums, cheap snapshots, deep reliability features, etc. A 500GB minimum wouldn't be a problem for most users who would use this - I have 6TB or so I would love to mount locally on my Mac if only there was a filesystem I trusted to put it in.

Just because most of their machines boot from SSDs now doesn't mean users don't want to plug in a storage array... The filesystem I want doesn't even need to support booting - Im fine with it being only for non-bootable volumes. As far as I am concerned HFS+ is fine for boot volumes (even SSDs) - I want something for storage arrays, and HFS+ is simply too inflexible and untrustworthy for that use case.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: OpenGL & filesystem
by tidux on Tue 30th Apr 2013 03:39 in reply to "RE: OpenGL & filesystem"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

You're off by an order of magnitude. The Dragonfly BSD installation docs recommend a minimum of 50GB for HAMMER, which is within the range of even crappy little mSATA SSDs and high end USB flash sticks these days.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: OpenGL & filesystem
by Soulbender on Tue 30th Apr 2013 04:56 in reply to "RE: OpenGL & filesystem"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

If apple does anything, they'll make their own new file system.


Considering Apple's previous attempts at creating filesystems that's something we should all fear.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: OpenGL & filesystem
by henderson101 on Tue 30th Apr 2013 15:11 in reply to "RE[2]: OpenGL & filesystem"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

If you mean HFS, it was designed in 1985 for the Macintosh - a single threaded OS at the time. The fact we are still using HFS is slightly perplexing, but it's not the exact same version as the 1985 vintage. HFS+ changed things quite a lot, and since then Apple have added case sensitivity and journalling (HFSX and HFSJ.) Yes, I think we'd all like something a little less tied to another age, but those that cry over HFS+ usually do so because of the bad memories of Classic Mac, rather than the fact that it is "fairly" stable and "pretty" reliable now.

Reply Parent Score: 4