Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ZFS Shows Up in New Leopard Build

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago

OS X 351

Udo Schmitz writes "As a follow-up to rumours from May this year, World of Apple has a screenshot showing Sun's Zettabyte File System in "the most recent Build of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard". Though I still wonder: If it is not meant to replace HFS+, could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?"

cancel ×

351 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285234)

SUCK IT COCKBAR

Re:FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285306)

Get a life...

Re:FIRST POST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285356)

Stop feeding the trolls.

Re:FIRST POST (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285404)

Stop trolling the feeders.

Oh noes! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285240)

It's a Vista ripoff!

Only 16 exabytes files? (0, Redundant)

tom17 (659054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285258)

How will I store my 32 exabyte "movie" files?

ZFS would be cool (1)

sigzero (914876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285262)

I hope they make it a default.

Re:ZFS would be cool (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285388)

That would be nice, but since ZFS can't be used as boot partition even in Solaris (they'll fix it). it's better to let it stabilize a couple of releases (ZFS is a young FS even in Solaris, after all) and then switch.

Re:ZFS would be cool (2, Informative)

furry_wookie (8361) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285768)

Actually, you CAN use ZFS for everything except boot...so all you need is a tiny little grub boot partition and your golden. This is a tried and true method of booting NIXen with other filesystem formats.

More important news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285268)

Google now has an ad for the google toolbar when you visit google.com in IE.

Very distasteful.

Morans! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285618)

How could my post be "offtopic" if I've changed the topic of conversation to something more interesting?

Do try and keep up.

Zettabyte? (5, Informative)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285270)

Isn't the term 'Zettabyte File System' actually inaccurate now? I thought they dropped that and ZFS now only remains as a pseudo initialism [wikipedia.org]

Re:Zettabyte? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17286032)

Do you mean "ACRONYM?"

Re:Zettabyte? (1)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286176)

No both 'initialism' and 'acronym' are correct, but acronym is usually referring to initialisms that can be pronounced as if they were a word.

"could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285282)

Ooohhh! I know this one!

The answer is:

It's yet another worthless effort by Apple to make OS X something other a niche operating system for the more money than sense emo computing demographic...

Exciting! (4, Interesting)

statusbar (314703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285288)

Now that Vista is finalized, expect Apple to show more and more of the 'secret' features of leopard!

--jeffk++

Re:Exciting! (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285310)

I'd just like a release date.

Otherwise... (5, Funny)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285328)

Now that Vista is finalized,

Because if Apple showed them before, there was a risk that Microsoft tried to announce them as future features in their soon-to-be-released perfect Windows Vista ?

Re:Otherwise... (4, Funny)

statusbar (314703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285432)

Nah, Microsoft would never do anything like that... They are a respectable company that does not misrepresent their products.

--jeffk++

Re:Exciting! (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286380)

Too true, now when MS rolls out their new ZFS filesystem in Vista we can all point and laugh, saying "They just copied Apple again!"

oh yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285318)

oh yes, for servers! server gurus may prefer it.

Just to get it out of the way... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285338)

The letter "Z" is pronounced "Zed" in Canada, UK, and other funny British Colonies, former funny British Colonies, and Colony-wannabies
The letter "Z" is properly pronounced "Zee" in the USA and Iraq (after 2003)

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285360)

The letter "Z" is properly pronounced "Zee" in [...] Iraq (after 2003)

When you have been shot by an invading force, you do not pronounce "Z".

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285420)

Nitpick time:

Parts of the US are former funny British Colonies.

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285532)

Are you saying that they are not funny anymore or that they are former colonies?

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285736)

Rules of grammar FTW!

If he had meant "former" modify "funny," it would be an adverb, "formerly". It's not, so it can't, and it doesn't.

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285486)

The letter "Z" is properly pronounced "Zee" in the USA and Iraq (after 2003)

I thought "Zee" was something that Frenchies said...

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (4, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285554)

Since we're nitpicking:
The letter "Z" is properly pronounced "Zee" in the USA and Iraq (after 2003)
That would correctly read "The letter "Z" is improperly pronounced "Zee" in the USA and Iraq (after 2003)"

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (4, Funny)

gb506 (738638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286146)

Zed's dead, baby.

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (2)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285744)

How could it be 'properly' pronounced in the USA dialect of English rather than the British 'Zed'? I mean it is after all a derivative of British English. Actually 'Zed' is probably closer to the source from which it comes - the Greek letter 'zeta'.

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (3, Informative)

clarkcox3 (194009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286306)

Actually 'Zed' is probably closer to the source from which it comes - the Greek letter 'zeta'
... and "Bed" is closer than "Bee" to "Beta", yet everyone says "Bee". At least the American pronunciation of the alphabet is internally consistent. ;)

Re:Just to get it out of the way... (1)

gwayne (306174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285854)

Smile when you say that, or you'll be pronouncing it "Zee" too!

Reason to support ZFS... (0)

Churla (936633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285364)

Not enough good acronyms with Z in them. This adds an aire of leetness to the whole thing.

copy-on-write (3, Insightful)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285366)

FTA:

Makes use of copy-on-write; rather than overwriting old data with new data, it writes new data to a new location and then overwrites the pointer to the old data
Wouldn't that pose a problem for mmap?

Re:copy-on-write (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285534)

Actually, despite all the references to "copy on write", I believe it's "allocate on write" since no copying is going on. But then again, this would make it even more similar to a certain existing filesystem. **WAFL** **cough** **NetApp**

Re:copy-on-write (2, Informative)

MotownAvi (204916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285540)

Why? In today's world, writing to an mmap-ed file most certainly doesn't hit the disk for each write. Instead, a block of memory from the buffer cache is used to hold the changes. The only difference is that instead of being backed (VM-wise) by the swap file, the block is backed by the mmap-ed file.

There's no real change here for ZFS, and it's unlikely that anything at the memory cache level even knows about the copy-on-write-ness of ZFS (or even cares).

a

Re:copy-on-write (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285566)

No. Mmap lives above the filesystem layer. Unless you are doing mmap on the block device, in which case you should realise that not everyone works for oracle...

Mmap simple maps pages of a disk file into memory. If the disk file changes its physical location then the mapping is updated. When you call mmap, you give it a disk file, an offset, and an extent. It is up to the VFS layer to translate this into physical mappings. LFS has the same issues, and these were solved well over a decade ago.

If you invoke mmap with MAP_PRIVATE, this actually makes it easier; if someone else updates the file then you just keep the existing mapping.

Re:copy-on-write (4, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286328)

FTA:

Makes use of copy-on-write; rather than overwriting old data with new data, it writes new data to a new location and then overwrites the pointer to the old data

Wouldn't that pose a problem for mmap?


It may do, but like many things there are alternative approaches.

From working on embedded hardware with flash memory, this makes me wonder whether possible addition of ZFS is meant to be for flash storage? Let me explain: flash memory has a fairly limited write-count, relative to hard disks, so to compensate for this memory is written in a circular fashion, to ensure that a given sector is written the least often possible. In addition to this, from what I can tell, Apple's main sales point are low profile computers and portables. The latter would benefit from flash storage as means of extending battery life, even if it is for a certain elements, such as for the OS which is accesed far more frequently than anything else on disk. Given this I wouldn't be surprised to see flash memory in future models of Apple portables, using ZFS, while HFS+ is still used for the hard disks.

This is pure speculation, but I feel that it has a high probabilty of being near the mark.

Reason? (1)

sam0vi (985269) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285382)

Here's their reason: They are just showy!

What a moron (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285406)

"Though I still wonder: If it is not meant to replace HFS+, could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?"

Duh... It's called compatibility.

Re:What a moron (4, Insightful)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285610)

It's called compatibility.

Wouldn't full NTFS support (or well, support for any FS more in use then ZFS today) make more sense?

Re:What a moron (0)

jonesy16 (595988) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285752)

EXT2 would be a good start . . .

Re:What a moron (5, Insightful)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285900)

Wouldn't full NTFS support (or well, support for any FS more in use then ZFS today) make more sense?

Yeah, I mean it's not like NTFS is defined and controlled by an organization renowned for its hostility to other platforms, reluctant to document things in a way that other people can implement them, and scared of interoperability, is it?

Re:What a moron (1)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285994)

Well, I mean it's not like other OSs are able to read from and write to NTFS, is it?

Re:What a moron (2, Funny)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286366)

my knoppix disc cries when I try that. It didn't before, but now it's just an emo jerk.

The Sun/Apple Juggernaut. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17286248)

We might be seeing the first stages of a Sun/Apple alliance. I don't suspect we'll see a merger anytime soon, if ever, but increasing cooperating between the two would be a sensible thing to do. It's the only way they can rival Microsoft.

Sun offers superior server performance, while Apple of course handles desktops and workstations with ease. With increased interoperability between the two, corporate customers can take advantage of high-performance Sun servers running Solaris, connected to by usable and reliable Mac OS X desktops from Apple. In short, they get everything they get from a Windows network, but with better performance and security.

Reasons to support? Servers (5, Interesting)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285474)

I will be soon converting my Linux server to Solaris just for ZFS. Although ZFS may not terribly useful on a normal desktop, on a server, it's very powerful.... The idea of parity data actually being used actively to ensure data isn't corrupted is brilliant imho. So is the idea of on-the-fly recovery (I remember a video of some guy writing 30 megs of junk to a partition using dd, ZFS detecting it, and repairing it). *ends rant since all this can be read up about online*

Re:Reasons to support? Servers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285726)

....raid-{1,5,6,10}.... + reiserfs == survive crash at anytime including a drive physically dying.

But glad to see you're dropping Linux, one less retarded uninformed clueless ignorant asshat around.

Re:Reasons to support? Servers (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285874)

A RAID array won't survive someone dding 40 megs or so to a partition, and reiserfs can hardly be called reliable, seeing as sometimes it just decides to hose the entire partition for no apparent reason. But glad to see you're using them for that, one more retarded uninformed clueless ignorant asshat to deal with.

Re:Reasons to support? Servers (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286160)

I, for one, would really like to see the Apple guys create an enterprise-class server. The XServe gets close, but fails as it is missing a OOB management processor (see HP's ILO for an example of how to do it right) and requires funky button pushing operations to do some things. No, ILO is not the same as an IP-KVM or serial console, which only handle 50% of all the functionality needed.

For some reason... (2, Interesting)

uohcicds (472888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285478)

...the words "Time Machine" are jumping up and down in front of my face trying to attract my attention. I can't think why that might be.

Re:For some reason... (1)

turnipsatemybaby (648996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285956)

Time Machine only works if you can maintain a thoroughput rate of 88Mbps.

Re:For some reason... (2, Funny)

Coward the Anonymous (584745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286324)

You also need 1.21 gigawatts of power.

A-peeling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285488)

"Though I still wonder: If it is not meant to replace HFS+, could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?""

Geek cred.

Not a likely replacement... (4, Insightful)

qwertphobia (825473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285490)

If it is not meant to replace HFS+, could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?"
Well, OSX 10.4 already supports FAT16, FAT32, and HFS, HFS+ (case sensitive and case-insensitive) and UFS. I don't see any obvuious conclusion that HFS+ is on the way out. Now if the OSX kernel AND os both support a ZFS-formatted partition as a boot partition, we might find it as an accceptable replacement, but otherwise I would think ZFS will be added for large enterprise SAN RAIDs and such.

Re:Not a likely replacement... (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285784)

I hate to be pedantic, but despite claiming UFS compatibility, the UFS that OSX uses is incompatible with everyone else. I tried formatting a UFS1 volume in FreeBSD, OSX wouldn't recognize it. Tried doing the same on OSX, FreeBSD couldn't read it. :\

I forget the reason now, but point is, UFS it may claim to be, but if you're using UFS for compatibility, sucks to be you. :(

Re:Not a likely replacement... (2, Insightful)

larkost (79011) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286014)

Actually, if you are using UFS on any platform for "compatibility", then "sucks to be you". NeXT's/Apple's version may be a little farther out than other implementations, but UFS in general suffers from many mutually incompatible variants. In fact it is better to assume that any compatibility is purely accidental, you will have a better expectation level that way.

Re:Not a likely replacement... (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286478)

Actually, if you are using UFS on any platform for "compatibility", then "sucks to be you". NeXT's/Apple's version may be a little farther out than other implementations, but UFS in general suffers from many mutually incompatible variants. In fact it is better to assume that any compatibility is purely accidental, you will have a better expectation level that way.

Yeah - Linux lists 8 different supported or semi-supported variants (which have to be selected between using a mount option - no auto-detection), and there are probably more it hasn't heard of. According to mount(8), the BSDs use a variant it calls "44bsd", whereas OS X uses "openstep" (not to be confused with "nextstep", which is the variant used by NeXT).

Re:Not a likely replacement... (1)

qwertphobia (825473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286038)

I forget the reason now, but point is, UFS it may claim to be, but if you're using UFS for compatibility, sucks to be you. :(
Bummer... I have to say I only used it once, as an experiment on a test server, and it was reinstalled on an HFS+ partition soon after. So I admit to using it, but I can't say I have much experience using it.

Re:Not a likely replacement... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17286268)

Have you ever *used* HFS+ in a high-volume, high-throughput environment with more than 100 clients? It's AWFUL and has frequent filesystem corruption problems. For the enterprise server and science markets HFS+ is a dog. ZFS will be a God send!

Obligatory (3, Informative)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285498)

A clicky to the Wiki article on ZFS [wikipedia.org] .

Any other reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285500)

Though I still wonder: If it is not meant to replace HFS+, could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?"

Apple Developer Connection released this VFS plug-in [apple.com] to support MFS (the original Macintosh File System [wikipedia.org] ). Does this mean Apple is going to replace HFS+? No. It means Apple is happy to employ its programmers working on making its operating system more useful for more people.

ZFS is overkill for a laptop - for now (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285504)

A few years ago, I sat down and worked out exactly what I thought a filesystem should do, and how I would implement it. At the time no filesystem came close. Then Sun released ZFS. Real documentation on it is hard to find (behind the marketing hype), but when I did track it down I discovered two things:
  1. They had implemented everything I thought they should, and
  2. That only accounted for about 40% of the features of ZFS.
Calling it the last word in filesystems might be hyperbole, but I expect ZFS to last a good 10-20 years, which is quite respectable for a filesystem, and I wouldn't be surprised if it lasted longer. Is it a replacement for HFS+? Not yet.

HFS+ is a very nice filesystem for single user systems with a single disk. It implements journalling, has reasonable performance, and has good metadata support. For the average users at the moment, the only real advantage of ZFS would be snapshots, and these are not too difficult to implement for other filesystems.

ZFS, however, is much better when you have multiple physical disks. At the moment, only the top-end Macs have more than one disk. This is likely to change in two ways:

  1. Cheap flash,
  2. Network storage
For a home user, ZFS could handle backups trivially by plugging in a large flash drive and adding it to the pool. I suspect this will be one mechanism Time Machine will use. Due to the way ZFS works, you can just mirror a part of the directory tree (e.g. /Users/aUser) onto the external disk. With a big external drive, you could mirror the entire disk onto it and also save snapshots (another Time Machine feature...). The same could be done with network storage. With the current price of hard drives, I wouldn't be surprised if .Mac started offering 10-20GB of storage space for remote backups using this mechanism (take a look at the NFS4 integration in ZFS to see how this could be done).

ZFS is not needed as a replacement for HFS+ in 2007, but it probably will be in 2008-9. ZFS is a 128-bit filesystem, which means it is designed to last for a long time. We will probably never need a 128-bit filesystem (unless we actually want to build hard drives the size of planets with single-atom sectors), but we will need a 65-bit filesystem once we get to around 10 Exabytes. This won't happen with single drives for a while, but it will with RAID arrays.

Re:ZFS is overkill for a laptop - for now (1)

immovable_object (569797) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285838)

For a home user, ZFS could handle backups trivially by plugging in a large flash drive and adding it to the pool. I suspect this will be one mechanism Time Machine will use. Due to the way ZFS works, you can just mirror a part of the directory tree (e.g. /Users/aUser) onto the external disk.

It doesn't work that way. As an alternative you could use ZFS send/receive, but adding a disk to a pool temporarily is similar to adding a disk to a RAID-5 set temporarily.

Another option would be to add it as a mirror disk, but that gets pretty complicated pretty fast. I'd recommend adding another disk and using ZFS send/receive.

Personally, I can't wait until I can use ZFS on my external firewire drives. The ability to check the drives for errors periodically is a great feature. It helps to diagnose connectivity and/or hardware issues.

Re:ZFS is overkill for a laptop - for now (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286196)

I suspect it was added to 10.5 for Mac OS X Server! I'm sure home users could eventually need it, but I'm sure an xserve is a data center attached to an xserve raid might be a better target. Lets face it, HFS+ isn't going anywhere just yet. They also include UFS support which is sometimes used on servers as well. I'm interested in this for the CS servers I administer and not for any client uses at this time.

Most (if not all) posts seem to direct this to a Mac Book Pro or something. I don't get it.

I read that as Z.P.M... (0, Offtopic)

mtec (572168) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285508)

I thought, "That'd be powerful"...

I'm such a geek.

Re:I read that as Z.P.M... (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285872)

High level awesomeness for both the ZPM reference and your sig.

Have you got a flag?!

ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? (5, Insightful)

Bonker (243350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285510)

The tech behind ZFS [sun.com] at least sounds very impressive, but I have to wonder how useful it is for workstation drives.

I've never found plain-Jane posix permissions to be all that useful on anything other than the most basic of server environments.

HFS has going for it all the fun stuff we've come to love apple for, such as transparent file customization like icons, labels, meta data, and whatnot through resource forks. I assume that these can be made to work with ZFS by making hidden files.

What I'd really like to see is both that kind of functionality along with NTFS's really excellent ACL permission system implemented. ACL permissions are a godsend for people responsible for running a file store that's used by humans as opposed to automated processes. NTFS also has a great deal of capacity for meta-data, although not to the same level as HFS.

NTFS is one of the few worthwhile things that's ever come out of Redmond. I wish more people would spend a bit learning from it without throwing it away simply because it's MS bloat.

Re:ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? (5, Insightful)

pesc (147035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285990)

NTFS is one of the few worthwhile things that's ever come out of Redmond. I wish more people would spend a bit learning from it without throwing it away simply because it's MS bloat.

I wish MS would let us. NTFS is worthless if you don't run Windows. And it hinders interoperability with other systems because its implementation and disk layout is secret/patented.

Why, do you think, there is no stable implementation that can write NTFS volumes (other than the MS implementation)?

Contrast this with ZFS which is released under an open source license.

Re:ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? (4, Insightful)

UtucXul (658400) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285992)

NTFS is one of the few worthwhile things that's ever come out of Redmond. I wish more people would spend a bit learning from it without throwing it away simply because it's MS bloat.
I think the negative opinion some people (including me) have of NTFS come not directly because it is from MS, but come from the incompatibility with everything else. I can't (reliably) read/write to it from a Mac, Linux, or Sun. That leaves only people totally in the MS camp able to use it. It may have some nice technical features, but I can't ever see them, so it is a little hard to be impressed or care about them too much.

Re:ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? (4, Informative)

pesc (147035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286080)

I've never found plain-Jane posix permissions to be all that useful on anything other than the most basic of server environments. ...
What I'd really like to see is both that kind of functionality along with NTFS's really excellent ACL permission system implemented.


I wish you could read more about ZFS before suggesting how you could improve it by adding ACLs. It already supports them!

http://blogs.sun.com/marks/entry/zfs_acls [sun.com]

Re:ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? (4, Insightful)

More Trouble (211162) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286136)

HFS has going for it all the fun stuff we've come to love apple for, such as transparent file customization like icons, labels, meta data, and whatnot through resource forks. I assume that these can be made to work with ZFS by making hidden files.

You assume correctly, since most of that business is taken care of with Bundles. This is why it more or less works on UFS, which is already supported on Mac OS X, and has been for years. Forks & whatnot are really a legacy idea.

What I'd really like to see is both that kind of functionality along with NTFS's really excellent ACL permission system implemented.

That's funny! The HFS+ ACL system is Microsoft's ACL system, much to the chagrin of the Unix community.

:w

Re:ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286198)

I assume that these can be made to work with ZFS by making hidden files.

Using hidden files for the resource forks would also make backups WAY WAY easier and more reliable than what is available now [plasticsfuture.org] .

Re:ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? (3, Interesting)

orgchartleafnode (665294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286294)

What I'd really like to see is both that kind of functionality along with NTFS's really excellent ACL permission system implemented.

Mac OS X Server 10.4 (Tiger) already has this. See: http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/fileprint.html [apple.com]

There is a "File Services" white paper linked off of he above page but here is the relavant marketing:

New in Mac OS X Server v10.4 are access control lists (ACLs), providing flexible file system permissions that are fully compatible with Windows Server 2003 Active Directory environments and Windows XP clients.

It's to support Time Machine (4, Interesting)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285522)

See this Ars Technica article [arstechnica.com] where John Siracusa said back in August:
"For Mac geeks of a certain persuasion, the first mention of a soon-to-be-revealed feature of Leopard during the WWDC keynote set off a mental chain-reaction. That feature was Time Machine, and the name alone was enough to cause one particular phrase to hammer in the mind of many people, including me: "New file system in Leopard!" It was even a bingo square. In fact, it was my personal favorite bingo square, and the one that I most looked forward to marking.

But let's back up a bit. Why should the mere name "Time Machine" scream "new file system" to anyone? And why the excitement about a new file system in the first place? What's wrong with HFS+, Mac OS X's current file system? It's got journaling. It supports arbitrarily extensible metadata. It can even be case-sensitive to satisfy the Unix geeks. Does Mac OS X really need a new file system?

In a word, yes. HFS was a state-of-the-art personal computer file system when it was first released...twenty-one years ago. HFS+ is only eight years old, but it's built on many of the design decisions of HFS. Progress marches on. Today, there are new capabilities that the best modern file systems have, but that HFS+, even with all of its recent additions, does not. Here's a short list.

  • Efficient storage and handling of very small files.
  • Logical volume management through a pooled storage model.
  • Improved data integrity using checksums on all data.
  • Snapshots.

So it's about the snapshot ability of ZFS, and that's exactly what will be needed for Time Machine [apple.com] .

Addition (1)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285564)

In this forum [insanelymac.com] they duiscuss build 9A326 and ZFS. Some posters mention, that you can choose ZFS but it doesn't work (yet) and/or that you can't install OS X on it.
And then I notice [wikipedia.org] that the official name of ZFS is ZFS these days: "The name originally stood for "Zettabyte File System", but is now a pseudo-initialism." Someone should tell Apple.
P.S.: What about my rewritten in cocoay goodness Finder? Pretty please?

going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (-1, Troll)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285578)

Apple could switch to ext3, a proven, high performance file system. Instead, they pick a file system that is going to be maximally incompatible with Linux. Seems to me, Apple wants to be incompatible with Linux.

Re:going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (1)

geders (206556) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285766)

I'm actually very curious why Apple does not support ext2/3 "out of the box"? Currently you can "try" to use ext2fs, but that only works from time to time. I would never trust it with real data that cannot be corrupted.

What is the rational behind not supporting ext2/3 natively in OSX? No demand? It would make our lives a lot easier...

Re:going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (-1, Troll)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285952)

What is the rational behind not supporting ext2/3 natively in OSX? No demand? It would make our lives a lot easier...

Apple's attitude towards many FOSS standards vacillates between indifference and hostility.

For example, they view X11 as a dead end and want to actively convert people to using Cocoa; hence, Apple's X11 support sucks and they have no interest in making it better.

OpenDoc compatibility would be natural for Pages and Keynote, but I suspect apart from being a lot of work, they don't want it: Microsoft Word matters commercially, and they likely view OpenDoc as supporting FOSS competition (since NeoOffice is actually quite sweet on MacOS).

As for ext3, I think there are two reasons. First, using ZFS, Apple has a feature-list advantage over ext3 (never mind that that doesn't translate into any real world advantages). Second, I think Apple really doesn't want to make it easy for people two switch between OS X and Linux; despite the bluster, they must recognize that Linux is a serious alternative to OS X, in particular given the current and upcoming releases of Gnome and KDE.

In a nutshell, the company just isn't committed to FOSS, they are just using FOSS when they see a short-term business advantage.

Re:going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17286410)

the X11 stuff is BS. what is apple's X server missing? Hardware acceleration, aqua integration, exporting? It works a heck of a lot better than Xming or other X-server on desktop servers. In fact, there was just an update about a month ago to improve stereoscopic applications.

Apple needs X11 to get people building scientific apps on Linux and Solaris. Its actually one of the best X implementations I've used (X.org, XFree86, Irix X Server)

Re:going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (1)

Bralkein (685733) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285810)

ZFS is an impressive filesystem, and Apple have every reason to be interested in it over and above, say, ext3. Of course, Apple aren't the only ones interested in ZFS - I have seen a great deal of excitement in the Linux community, too. I am pretty confident that a Linux driver for ZFS will emerge, and in the long run, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it ended up being a very common filesystem on Linux systems. For anyone wanting (read-only, ATM) access to ZFS partitions on Linux today, there is a ZFS FUSE driver [blogspot.com] available.

Re:going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286058)

For anyone wanting (read-only, ATM) access to ZFS partitions on Linux today, there is a ZFS FUSE driver available.

Yes, that's the typical Apple solution: you can sort of use it, but if you really want to use it, you have to commit to using OS X. It's not a good proposition.

I am pretty confident that a Linux driver for ZFS will emerge, and in the long run, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it ended up being a very common filesystem on Linux systems.

I seriously doubt there will be an independent implementation of ZFS; that work would probably go into ext5. Even if there were (or if ZFS becomes GPL compatible), I doubt it will get much traction: Linux has had more powerful file systems than ext3 for many years, and people choose not to use them. Impressive feature lists don't make a better file system.

Re:going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (1)

davecb (6526) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285828)

No, they just wanted something that could implement "time machine", their backup-done-right proposal.

I expect Solaris to be switchd to GPL some time in the GPLv3 era, at which point there won't be a problem porting ZFS to Linux. Not that it was technically difficult to port it to Apple/BSD (;-))

--dave

Re:going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286020)

No, they just wanted something that could implement "time machine", their backup-done-right proposal.

There are several open source file systems that support time-machine like functionality. Nor is there anything particularly new about "time machine"--it's a well-known approach that works fairly well in some circumstances and not at all in others.

I expect Solaris to be switchd to GPL some time in the GPLv3 era, at which point there won't be a problem porting ZFS to Linux.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. Either way, it won't make a big difference to Linux. Ext3 is actually a good design; its deliberately limited feature set is what makes it good.

Re:going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285926)

Going off on a tangent, it's a little funny that everyone is always going on about how "free" the GPL is, and yet ZFS is open-source, but not useable by Linux because of the GPL. I'm liking the BSD license more every day.

Re:going for Linux incompatibility, it seems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285996)

Not really.

http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

ZFS + Timemachine (2, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285588)

With ZFS we might be able to get some very powerful backup features into OSX. Most binaries files don't change most of their content, ZFS makes it possible to due meaningful differential backups on large binary files. So for example 200 versions of a word doc with sounds and pictures that got revised over 6 months get stored in maybe 3x the space of the last revision. Emails with the same attachments get stored in just a few k rather than taking a meg each.... If Apple has this all working together by 10.5 then TimeMachine will work far far better then people currently expect it to. A 50g drive will be backing up a terabyte of worth of files.

What? Of course it is (2, Interesting)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285598)

if it is not meant to replace HFS+, could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?

The answer is that it probably is meant to replace HFS+, but since ZFS is not bootable yet (including for Solaris 10) Apple can take the time to introduce ZFS, build tools for easier management, and let people get familiar with the FS before they have to drop HFS+.

HFS' lifetime has already stretched far beyond what it should have, it's time for Apple to think of its next generation FS, and ZFS is an extremely promising FS with heaps of amazing features Apple has already started to integrate into its UIs with Leopard (Time Machine + ZFS Snapshots anyone?).

ZFS also shows strong promises as both a home and a server FS.

Re:What? Of course it is (1)

Bake (2609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285790)

Maybe not bootable in the wild, but about a little over a year ago ZFS was successfully booted on Solaris on X86 according to this blog:

http://blogs.sun.com/tabriz/entry/zfs_boot [sun.com]

Re: Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17285606)

"Though I still wonder: If it is not meant to replace HFS+, could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?"
Boot Camp?

Some reasons... (1)

AceJohnny (253840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285650)

... because they want an extra edge in the server market? ... because they wanted to grab some free headlines?

And last but not least: ... because an engineer was bored?

On a side note, I've read a lot about how ZFS is supposed to be reliable and flexible as hell. Nowhere, however, have I found information about read/write performance. I guess it's a great filesystem for huge mission-critical datasets, but for anybody else? I have my doubts.

Or can somebody enlighten me?

I wonder... (1)

Daishiman (698845) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285694)

I really don't see much use for this in workstations, but for us having a real-life need for this, I'd like to know how it compares in performance to Linux LVM, Veritas File System, AIX LVM with JF2, and NTFS Dynamic Volumes.

Xsan (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285940)

While ZFS might be useful for supporting Time Machine, it's not necessary and I would think that if Apple were including it by default on all Leopard distributions (as they'd have to if it were the underlying technology for Time Machine), they'd probably be talking it up a little bit more right now.

ZFS is still overkill for most home computing needs, so I'm not sold on it being the default filesystem for OS X installs. My first guess is that it's going to be an option for network-acceccible storage. Something like this would be really killer on an Xsan volume.

Checksumming != no data corruption (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285980)

From the article:

"Finally the most important feature of data integrity os check summing and everything on ZFS is checksummed meaning zero data corruption."

Umm , last time I looked checksumming merely told you if there WAS data corruption , it doesn't prevent it. Does ZFS has some other method to prevent data corruption (eg for a gone bad sector etc) or does it just flag a file as corrupted and leave it up to you what to do next?

They already have UFS, and don't use it... (2, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17285988)

They already have UFS and don't make it really usable, even after making a big deal about it being updated to the latest version from FreeBSD in Panther. It's a shame, too, because while HFS+ has a lot of nifty features all of them could be emulated over UFS or ZFS or any other file system (by putting the hooks for applications like Spotlight in the vnode layer rather than the file system - the vnode layer already has most of the hooks Spotlight needs), it falls far behind UFS in terms of reliability.

In fact HFS+ is *so* bad that if it wasn't for a couple of apps that absolutely freak out if they don't have their pet un-emulated feature I would have gone to UFS long since... even if I lost Spotlight completely. Until my Mac I had never run into a file system that wasn't so badly damaged as to be unbootable that coudn't be repaired by fsck... but apparently with HFS+ just running it "too full" can trash it, and I lost my system disk on my old G4 three months running because of that!

So I wouldn't hold out any expectations of ZFS being implemented in any useful way. They already have better file systems than HFS+ and they're not using them.

any reason (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286046)

could there be any other reasons to support ZFS

Could it be that the guy was raised on Windows ? Or what ? I mean, in the real world, there are more file systems that the one which your OS uses by default. And adding native support for them is not a questionable move, it's an applaudible move.

Hell, I remember what a happy day it was when I found crossmeta's xfs reading tools for Windows. Things like this shouldn't be a thing to raise an eyebrow for. What you all should raise your eyebrows for is why some OSes repetitively do not want to add native support for widespread file systems.
 

Maybe I'm just paranoid... (1)

ptomblin (1378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286116)

...but if I were on a closed alpha or beta program, I'd be real cagey about posting screen shots. I think it wouldn't be that hard to embed a steganographic code on the screen so the company doing the beta would know who leaked. Is there some sort of random noise filter that would remove anything like that?

Holy crap! I asked for this at WWDC '06! (1)

csoto (220540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17286454)

Mac OS X is really lacking a modern volume manager. ZFS adds this plus a whole lot of other data integrity/portability features. And it's open source. I hope this isn't just a rumor.

I wonder if this was one of the "new APIs" they were talking about at the Time Machine session I attended...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?