Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jun 2013 14:35 UTC
Mac OS X The third and final WWDC product I want to talk about is - of course - OS X 10.9 Mavericks. While iOS 7 was clearly the focus of this year's WWDC, its venerable desktop counterpart certainly wasn't left behind. Apple announced OS X 10.9 Mavericks, the first OS X release not to carry the name of a big cat.
Thread beginning with comment 564624
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Interested in compression
by REM2000 on Thu 13th Jun 2013 15:30 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

After reading through the Core Technology overview PDF on mavericks i am interested in how the OS is going to work.

The biggest problem ive had in recent releases was when Lion messed up Expose, however bringing that back in Mountain Lion fixed that, i haven't got any other complaints.

I used to be more vocal on HFS+, as during the leopard/snow leopard era i had a couple of filesystem cascade crashes where every folder just corrupted itself. The HDD was physically fine the fs not so much. However i haven't had one of these in the Lion + era so perhaps a revision has been made to the FS and it fixed the stability of it, i trust NTFS more still (apart from the king which is ZFS).

i am interested in the compression and i like the idea of bringing CPU cycles in line, i have a macbook air which has fixed 4GB RAM, personally for the work i do on it, it's fine, i don't develop or edit large photos / videos. However i do notice that it sometimes starts getting a little full so if the compression reduces this down ill be happy.

As said i like the idea of bringing the CPU cycles together along with the other battery enhancing (app nap) stuff, again im not going to complain as my MBA does incredibly well, however an extra hour or so would be a big bonus for an inexpensive software upgrade.

I love the idea of Calendar, Reminders and hopefully the address book looking professional again, i hated the leather look of Lion and thought that calendar looked great from the Leopard/SL era.

The most interesting part of the overview document was that SMB2 is the default sharing protocol, which is surprising that apple are not going to push AFP and simply go with SMB. Although i will admit that this makes sense as it's a protocol with the help of Samba that all the OS's can read.

Overall im excited for this release. It does feel that Lion was similar to Microsoft's Vista, in that it brought a lot of changes and some new underpinnings and now apple are able to take advantage of these and start pushing out more features.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Interested in compression
by darknexus on Thu 13th Jun 2013 16:35 in reply to "Interested in compression"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

i trust NTFS more still (apart from the king which is ZFS).

I don't. When NTFS crashes it can be far more subtle, let's say a cluster bitmap corruption (i.e. the bit that tells the filesystem what space is used and what is free). Ever seen that? It looks, on the users' end, like files are randomly disappearing as they're being erased by new files without the os realizing it. Yes you can repair it, but you can't get the files that were replaced back again unless you have a backup, and if you're not watching it closely you may not notice this right away. It's nasty. At least when most other filesystems crash you know it and in some of them, like the ext? filesystems and zfs, it is self-correcting as there are multiple copies of the superblock and inconsistencies are checked against them.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Interested in compression
by malxau on Thu 13th Jun 2013 19:13 in reply to "RE: Interested in compression"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

I don't. When NTFS crashes it can be far more subtle, let's say a cluster bitmap corruption (i.e. the bit that tells the filesystem what space is used and what is free). Ever seen that?


So firstly, I work on Windows filesystems (see bio.) I get to see a lot...

It looks, on the users' end, like files are randomly disappearing as they're being erased by new files without the os realizing it.


I don't think this is what happens. Imagine a cluster is in use by FileA but (for whatever reason) the bitmap doesn't record it as allocated. Now FileB gets allocated the same cluster. FileA is still there, because the system didn't detect the condition. It's just that FileA's contents end up the same as FileB's contents, because they're using the same block. And if only one cluster was in this condition, the party stops here, because the cluster is now marked in use so only these two files will share it.

Given how bad this is, NTFS works hard to avoid it, both at the design level and by making pessimistic assumptions in event of detected corruption. As above, I see a lot, and I don't see this often.

...like the ext? filesystems and zfs, it is self-correcting as there are multiple copies of the superblock and inconsistencies are checked against them.


ZFS has checksums so it can detect corruption in its structures (assuming, of course, that the corruption was not generated by a bug), and use a good copy if one exists. ReFS, Microsoft's next generation file system, also checksums its metadata, and when used with Storage Spaces can also locate a good copy of data if one exists. Ext2/3 do not. Ext4 checksummed its journal and more recently metadata too; I don't know how it would be able to recover though, since AFAIK it doesn't keep redundant copies, so it has nothing to recover from.

Reply Parent Score: 5

REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

i have to agree with the other posters, i haven't seen this problem myself, ive been using NT since 4, since about 1998.

The worst ive ever seen an NTFS volume was on a windows 2003 server, i can't remember what brought it about, either a problem with power or something, but it seemed pretty corrupted, however after a couple of automatic restarts after a chkdsk during start up it went along fine, couldn't see any data loss on the drive either which was surprising.

Ive seen some pretty bad use of disks on windows, unplugging when files are copying, powercut/power cycling, but NTFS always bounces back.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Interested in compression
by someone on Thu 13th Jun 2013 18:05 in reply to "Interested in compression"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Actually, Apple uses their own implementation called SMBX, since they don't like GPL3

Reply Parent Score: 3

REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

thats interesting i never knew that,

i thought MacOSX used samba

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Interested in compression
by kaiwai on Fri 14th Jun 2013 15:02 in reply to "RE: Interested in compression"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, Apple uses their own implementation called SMBX, since they don't like GPL3


It has nothing to do with liking or disliking GPL3 (liking/disliking implies an emotion based reason rather than technical) but the fact that Apple wanted to do one thing but the licence said that they couldn't thus they kept with the GPL2 version till their in house implementation could replace it. Unless you're advocating that Apple should break licenses to keep people like you happy then they made the right move - it also allows them to talk directly to Microsoft and possibly share code which hopefully will translate into a better implementation.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Interested in compression
by kaiwai on Fri 14th Jun 2013 16:08 in reply to "Interested in compression"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

After reading through the Core Technology overview PDF on mavericks i am interested in how the OS is going to work.

The biggest problem ive had in recent releases was when Lion messed up Expose, however bringing that back in Mountain Lion fixed that, i haven't got any other complaints.

I used to be more vocal on HFS+, as during the leopard/snow leopard era i had a couple of filesystem cascade crashes where every folder just corrupted itself. The HDD was physically fine the fs not so much. However i haven't had one of these in the Lion + era so perhaps a revision has been made to the FS and it fixed the stability of it, i trust NTFS more still (apart from the king which is ZFS).


The impression I get with HFS+ is that Core Storage is going to be where all the 'fun' occurs and to the applications sitting on top things will keep working as they do. I'm sure they've looked at the scenario of replacing and realised that it'll cause more problems that it solves with the benefits being minuscule to the end user when compared to the pain that it brings. This way you get to 'clean house' and improve HFS+ without the disruption a new file system will result in. I'd say it is very much a layered way of doing things very much like how FreeBSD bought enhancements to its own file system.

i am interested in the compression and i like the idea of bringing CPU cycles in line, i have a macbook air which has fixed 4GB RAM, personally for the work i do on it, it's fine, i don't develop or edit large photos / videos. However i do notice that it sometimes starts getting a little full so if the compression reduces this down ill be happy.


True, and a good amount of that memory, I'd hazard to guess, is stuff that the end user is no longer even using such as the case of Safari where if you close a tab the memory isn't instantly reclaimed - hopefully with the new per-process tab and other infrastructure improvements along with a quick adoption of new technologies by third parties the situation will improve greatly.

As said i like the idea of bringing the CPU cycles together along with the other battery enhancing (app nap) stuff, again im not going to complain as my MBA does incredibly well, however an extra hour or so would be a big bonus for an inexpensive software upgrade.

I love the idea of Calendar, Reminders and hopefully the address book looking professional again, i hated the leather look of Lion and thought that calendar looked great from the Leopard/SL era.


Photobooth still has the horrible Scott Forstall look so I'm hoping that a build later down the track will result in its cleaning up in favour of the same sort of professional appearance rather than the gimmicky crap that was introduced during Scott's time at the helm.

The most interesting part of the overview document was that SMB2 is the default sharing protocol, which is surprising that apple are not going to push AFP and simply go with SMB. Although i will admit that this makes sense as it's a protocol with the help of Samba that all the OS's can read.

Overall im excited for this release. It does feel that Lion was similar to Microsoft's Vista, in that it brought a lot of changes and some new underpinnings and now apple are able to take advantage of these and start pushing out more features.


Not surprised; it has been one good thing that I've noticed with Apple - they'll kill something off that no longer has an advantage and a reason for existing other than for sentimental value. Apple has also put Quicktime off to pasture as it is now considered deprecated in favour of AV Kit which will hopefully translate into a better experience for Windows users of their i-devices. One thing I noted over on Reddit in a reply is how the removal of Scott has resulted in serious power user improvements finally appearing in OS X where as it seemed to be for the last couple of releases the focus was on user visible gimmicks such as faux leather, the Games Centre etc. rather than addressing the stuff that heavy lifting pro's need fixing up.

Edited 2013-06-14 16:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4