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 For Mac OS X Source Code Available

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the go-ahead-make-a-really-big-file-system dept.

Software 251

nezmar writes "Noel Dellofano, who is part of the ZFS development team at Apple, has a post on Mac OS Forge announcing a late Christmas gift: he is making available binaries and source code, plus instructions, of the ZFS filesystem for Mac OS X."

cancel ×

251 comments

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

test (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22028482)

dutz, this troll for you mate!!!! dota?

Eddie Murphy sings about the merits of ZFS: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031080)

Well, step aside my friend
I've been doing it for years
I say, sit on down, open your eyes
And open up your ears

Say
Put a tree in your butt
Put a bumblebee in your butt
Put a clock in your butt
Put a big rock in your butt
Put some fleas in your butt
Start to sneeze in your butt
Put a tin can in your butt
Put a little tiny man in your butt
Put a light in your butt
Make it bright in your butt
Put a TV in your butt
Put me in your butt
Everybody say

I, hey, that's, man, I ain't putting no trees in nobody's butt,
no bees in nobody's butt, putting nothing--
You must be out your mind, man,
y'all get paid for doing this?
Cause y'all gotta get some kind of money
Cause this don't sound like the kind of--
I'd rather golf, to be perfectly honest,
than put somethin in somebody's butt
to be truthful

Well step aside my friend and let me
show you how you do it
When big bad E just rock rock to it

Put a metal case in your butt
Put her face in your butt
Put a frown in your butt
Put a clown in your butt
Sit on down in your butt
Put a boat in your butt
Put a moat in your butt
Put a mink coat in your butt
Put everything in your butt
Just start to sing about your butt
Feels real good

Wow (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22028570)

This is huge news! Take that Vista!

The real questions are... (4, Interesting)

slyn (1111419) | more than 6 years ago | (#22028630)

How stable is it, and how soon till I can get it on my Mac by default?

Re:The real questions are... (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030440)

a readonly version is included with leopard:

sh-3.2# zfs
Read-Only ZFS Implementation
missing command
usage: zfs command args ...

Re:The real questions are... (2, Insightful)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031172)

a readonly version is included with leopard:
Honestly, what good is a file system if you can't write to it? Please enlighten me.

Re:The real questions are... (4, Insightful)

Kremmy (793693) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031306)

Not real sure, but you might want to ask the users of ISO9660 and UDF on optical media.

Re:The real questions are... (3, Informative)

wodgy7 (850851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031600)

It's so that you can bring a ZFS volume to any old Mac running Leopard, plug it in, and read data off it, without having to install any extra (currently beta) software.

This is also why, when you create a ZFS pool using the read/write drivers, it defaults to creating a pool with ZFS version 6 on disk, so that it's compatible with the version of ZFS shipping with Leopard. (You run "zfs update" to transform your pool to the most recent on disk version if this kind of compatibility isn't an issue for you.)

BTW, Leopard also reads from BSD and Solaris-created ZFS drives just fine.

Re:The real questions are... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031704)

...what good is a file system if you can't write to it?
 
Sure will come in handy if/when it becomes the standard file system for Macintosh in the future. Just because write support is not rock solid at the moment does not mean read support is unwelcome.

Re:The real questions are... (2, Informative)

xeno (2667) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031956)

"what good is a file system if you can't write to it?"

I could say the same of NTFS. After throwing in the towel with regard to Windows as a base OS, I have years of accumulated data on NTFS volumes spread across a small pile of drives. Linux support for NTFS is still a little shaky. But with read-only access to NTFS, I can throw those old desktop or laptop drives into an enclosure, connect it, and either pull all the data over to a writable volume for ongoing work (and perhaps dispose of the old drive), or pick out individual pieces of data I want without worry of corrupting the volume.

How does this apply to ZFS? Not sure, since "piles of old data" isn't a likely scenario on ZFS. But I can imagine accessing shared NAS/SAN ZFS volumes with only one system managing dynamic allocation... or perhaps ZFS in place of ISO9660 to speed up large software installations?

NTFS-3G on Linux is stable (4, Informative)

Cato (8296) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032106)

Have you tried NTFS-3G? It really is very stable, no doubt due to the exhaustive testing regime on every release - see http://www.ntfs-3g.org/quality.html [ntfs-3g.org] - and is used by default in most Linux distros. It's a different codebase to the older Linux-NTFS and Captive NTFS projects, and has reasonably good performance.

Since ZFS is new, I don't think your scenario applies, and it's not intended for DVD/CD use.

Re:The real questions are... (4, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030484)

It's already available on FreeBSD [freebsd.org] if you want to play.

Re:The real questions are... (4, Informative)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030968)

Or more to the point, OpenSolaris... because that's where it came from

Re:The real questions are... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031964)

And people are not very happy about it:
http://kerneltrap.org/FreeBSD/ZFS_Stability [kerneltrap.org]
But that doesn't stop the buzzword fanboys.

Re:The real questions are... (5, Informative)

wodgy7 (850851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030606)

I've been running ZFS on my home Mac server since the old developer seed. It's generally stable as long as you disable Spotlight indexing on the volume (it's not supported yet). Everything on the command line works, as does accessing the ZFS pool over AFS. It's *very* easy to set up btw, much easier than setting up a RAID in Linux. There were issues deleting files from the Finder in the last release; I haven't installed the 102A release yet. Still, if you're just using it for a server volume, you'll probably be happy with it.

Re:The real questions are... (3, Interesting)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030794)

"It's *very* easy to set up btw, much easier than setting up a RAID in Linux. "

I doubt that. Setting up a RAID array in Linux is about 4-5 lines in the CLI.

Re:The real questions are... (4, Interesting)

wodgy7 (850851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030824)

It wasn't that easy to set up a RAID in Linux the last time I tried (admittedly long ago), but even in comparison, setting up a RAID-Z in ZFS is just a single line: "zpool create mypool raidz disk4s2 disk5s2 disk6s2"

Re:The real questions are... (1)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030900)

As long as we're omitting actual installation, setting up a RAID array in Linux is also a single line operation.

This would make hda1 and hdb1 into a RAID1 array: "mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/hda1 /dev/hdb1"

Re:The real questions are... (5, Insightful)

hjf (703092) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031056)

then you need to mkfs, and if you run out of space you're screwed because you can't easily grow. also, you can't create a newer fs, nor you can have snapshots, send/receive snapshots, volumes, have on-the-fly checksumming and disks that don't drop off the array at the first read error, one-line CIFS/NFS/iSCSI sharing. Get over it... zfs is better than md+lvm+ext3+whatever.

I'm not trolling, it's just that ZFS has been developed without the traditional and orthodox methods of disk-partition-filesystem and put everything on a single "layer", and instead of losing flexibility, we gain more, just because zfs developers were thinking outside the box (the now "traditional" way of doing things is segregation: the OSI layers, etc, claim to be more flexible, efficient and manageable than throwing everything together). I know, I know, veritas had this for years, so we could say that it was stole^H^H^H^H^Hcopied from them -- just as gates copied jobs, and jobs copied xerox.

Imagine the possibilities of breaking traditionalisms (like linux does "socially" but not "technologically").

Re:The real questions are... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031134)

You forgot:

For LVM, one has to partition the disks first. If you're giving the whole disk to ZFS, just use something like "zpool create pool raidz c5t6d0 c5t6d1 c5t6d2 c5t6d3" (that's straight from memory - don't hold me to the exact syntax...). ZFS will partition the disks for you.

One less thing to worry about with ZFS.

Re:The real questions are... (2, Insightful)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031764)

zpool create pool raidz c5t6d0 c5t6d1 c5t6d2 c5t6d3

For those of you who have not used Solaris yet, or aren't sure whether ZFS is up to the hype; that notation is "disk n of target 6 of controller 5." Your home server has absolutely nothing on the dreadnoughts from Sun. They sell a box with 50+ hotswap drive bays, and the CPU power to back it up (and it's not even the top of their line).

-:sigma.SB

linux md is grow-able, as is xfs and ext3 (3, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031698)

then you need to mkfs, and if you run out of space you're screwed because you can't easily grow.

All of Linux's md raid modes are grow-able.

LVM2, XFS, and ext3 are all capable of not just expansion, but *online* expansion. With xfs, it's one command- xfs_grow -d. It automatically senses the new block device size and presto, you've got a larger file system.

BTDT two weeks ago when I added a drive to my RAID5 array, expanded the LVM2 physical volume, grew the logical volume, and then grew the XFS volume (I make the choice to run LVM2 on top of the array- I could have just as easily put XFS directly on the array device itself.) The only caveat is that you won't see the extra space until the resilvering is done.

I'm not saying it's equal to ZFS, but Linux's filesystems and volume management are a lot more capable than you're claiming, and everyone needs to calm down and realize that RAID is not ZFS, ZFS is not RAID, etc.

Re:The real questions are... (1)

HRogge (973545) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031954)

I'm not trolling, it's just that ZFS has been developed without the traditional and orthodox methods of disk-partition-filesystem and put everything on a single "layer", and instead of losing flexibility, we gain more, just because zfs developers were thinking outside the box (the now "traditional" way of doing things is segregation: the OSI layers, etc, claim to be more flexible, efficient and manageable than throwing everything together). I know, I know, veritas had this for years, so we could say that it was stole^H^H^H^H^Hcopied from them -- just as gates copied jobs, and jobs copied xerox.

Imagine the possibilities of breaking traditionalisms (like linux does "socially" but not "technologically").
Single layer designs do work well unless you have more than one file system. What's the use of a filesystem with built in LVM if you have a harddisk with multiple filesystems ?

Re:The real questions are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032074)

Well, that's not difficult. Just add different slices to different pools.
-posted anonymously, due to not wanting to remove a modpoint to a good post above here somewhere.

Re:The real questions are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031066)

How about iSCSI targets? Can you do that with LVM?

Cloned file systems? Snapshots?

Data corruption detection and recovery?

Linux md isn't rocket science...nor is ZFS raid (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031290)

It wasn't that easy to set up a RAID in Linux the last time I tried (admittedly long ago), but even in comparison, setting up a RAID-Z in ZFS is just a single line: "zpool create mypool raidz disk4s2 disk5s2 disk6s2"

mdadm create -l 5 -n 4 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1

If you like living dangerously, you don't need to do anything else except put LVM2 on it and add an fstab entry; md automatically goes hunting for raid partitions when it is loaded, and the md superblock info contains all the info needed to assemble and array, no config needed. However, if you set up mdadm with information about the raid array, it'll behave more intelligently when things go wrong.

That said, ZFS is not "raid", and md is not a file system and volume manager. ZFS offers a lot you won't find anywhere else, but the basic lack of standard features found in ZFS compared to a large number of RAID and/or volume management systems means that ZFS has a ways to go: ZFS does not support increasing the number of drives in a pool, and you CANNOT migrate between any of the various vdevs. You cannot go from a single drive to a pair of mirrored drives, or from a single drive or mirror to RAIDZ. You cannot increase the number of drives in a RAIDZ set. Instead, they force you to add entire redundant vdevs to the pool. All of the aforementioned resilvering is stuff Linux RAID has been able to do for years (well, okay, the RAID 5 expansion stuff is a little new.)

I migrated a single drive to a mirrored array a couple months ago. Then I migrated that to 3-drive RAID5. Then I migrated that to a four-drive array. None of that would have been doable with ZFS.

However, from what I understand, Sun is working on the expansion stuff...and a defragment tool (thank god that, like SGI, they don't subscribe to the bullshit myth that modern filesystems don't get fragmented. It's not true with NTFS, it's not true with HFS+, and it sure as hell isn't true with ext2/3 OR reiserfs...I wish people would stop perpetuating that bullshit myth!)

Re:Linux md isn't rocket science...nor is ZFS raid (1)

bombshelter13 (786671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031440)

Hey, this is trailing a little off topic, but I'm about to do just that with my home server - move from a 2 disk mirrored md array to a 4 disk raid-5 array, and was unaware that there was any special method to ease the transition the way you'd suggest. Can you point me at an article that would provide more information on this? It'd definitely be a lot easier then having to back up the entire contents of the array.

Re:Linux md isn't rocket science...nor is ZFS raid (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031762)

Can you point me at an article that would provide more information on this? It'd definitely be a lot easier then having to back up the entire contents of the array.

I don't have any links handy and it's bedtime, but...from what I recall, you stop the existing array and then use mdadm to "create" a raid 5 array with those two drives. It'll bitch and say there's an array there already, but ignore the warning and force the operation. Apparently, md lays out data identical to a mirror if you create a 2-disk RAID5 array. Odd...

Then, use mdadm to add another drive as a spare, and grow the raid device out (ie using -n to change the number of devices along with the grow command.)

I really, really wouldn't try this without a backup, and I would make sure I was running a fairly recent 2.6 kernel, as the RAID expansion stuff was introduced in the 'teen releases and probably saw a number of bugfixes. I'd also try googling for stuff like "md raid migration" or somethin'. There were a few blog posts out there where people did exactly what you're looking for.

If the total device size is small enough, buy an external drive from somewhere and return it a few days later (after zeroing out the drive, of course.) Check for restocking fees etc...though even 15% on ~$350 (which is what you can get a 1TB hitachi external drive from BB for) ain't bad if you think of it as a 1-2 week "rental" and/or insurance...

oop, one last note (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031786)

Then, use mdadm to add another drive as a spare, and grow the raid device out (ie using -n to change the number of devices along with the grow command.)

One last note: I accidentally 'added' a drive straight to the array without changing the number of drives. It seemed to just mirror the array onto the third drive. I believe the important bit is to add it as a spare, and then grow with a new #-of-devices param (-n). You might be able to do the add & change-# at the same time, and I just forgot to give the -n option.

One good way to test all this: loopback devices :-) Just do it with a filesystem on that fake raid set, and a file on the filesystem for which you've calculated the checksum, etc.

Re:Linux md isn't rocket science...nor is ZFS raid (4, Interesting)

wodgy7 (850851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031710)

You're mistaken. ZFS RAID-Z is definitely "raid" -- in fact it's RAID without the RAID-5 write hole on non-specialized (no NVRAM in the controller) hardware. Contrary to what you said, you *can* easily go from a single drive to a pair of mirrored drives (see ZFS admin guide, p. 59) or a RAID-Z (p. 60). The only real limitation is you cannot add an additional disk to an existing RAID-Z configuration, the idea right now being that you'll add another set of disks in RAID-Z as a top-level vdev. This is not optimal for a lot of scenarios but they're working on it. ZFS mirrored configurations are more flexible.

The data integrity advantages of ZFS over traditional RAID-4 and RAID-5 are hard to argue with... it validates the entire input-output path.

Re:Linux md isn't rocket science...nor is ZFS raid (-1, Flamebait)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031820)

You're mistaken. ZFS RAID-Z is definitely "raid" -- in fact it's RAID without the RAID-5 write hole on non-specialized (no NVRAM in the controller) hardware

I sat through the entire presentation by the guy who headed the ZFS team. I know all about it, thank-you-very-fucking-much. My point was that it is not valid to compare Linux's md to ZFS and declare "linux md sucks, it can't do any of this!", because ZFS is not [just] a RAID system...AND because md can do things ZFS can't.

I hate nit-picky little twerps like you who think you're so fucking smart because you stomp all over someone for not choosing their wording perfectly.

Re:Linux md isn't rocket science...nor is ZFS raid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032028)

Wow, you sat through a presentation about ZFS. How important and entitled that must make you feel.

Not ready for prime time... (3, Interesting)

maubp (303462) | more than 6 years ago | (#22028652)

Reading their FAQ, it sounds like there are lot of niggles to fix yet - including assumptions in other parts of Mac OS. All in all it sounds like ZFS isn't ready for general use on the Mac just yet. Maybe Mac OS X 10.6 will ship with this by default?

Re:Not ready for prime time... (4, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030472)

I'll bet one of the reasons they're putting it out there is the hope that a few kind souls with some time on their hands will submit some patches and work out the kinks; given the amount of interest there is for this to be working on Mac OS X -- and there's a lot.

Maybe between Apple, some Sun devs on their breaks and Amit Singh they can have this all wrapped up in a few months :)

Academic question: What would have happened if MS had open sourced WinFS? Even under their PL, there would probably have been enough interest among enough dedicated nerds to... who knows.

Re:Not ready for prime time... (1)

russellh (547685) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030942)

I'll bet one of the reasons they're putting it out there is the hope that a few kind souls with some time on their hands will submit some patches and work out the kinks
a day or two before macworld? hmm.

Re:Not ready for prime time... (0, Troll)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031008)

Nothing short of a complete redesign could have rescued WinFS. The design as it was was flawed from nearly the beginning.

Doesn't that go without saying? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031206)

Nothing short of a complete redesign could have rescued WinFS. The design as it was was flawed from nearly the beginning.

It's a windows family tradition.

Re:Not ready for prime time... (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030908)

I think if ZFS becomes a new native FS to OS X (e.g. disk can be formatted to ZFS) we might not see it released until 10.6. Apple probably won't release a 10.5.x boot disk for users to reinstall the OS with ZFS as their boot drive. I think the changeover would be too "drastic" to not be part of 10.6. And it gives opportunity to have users buy an upgrade.

I'm excited to see ZFS get adopted into OS X. I've read some info about it and am really eager to take advantage of it. It would be really cool of Microsoft to run it native on Windows!

Re:Not ready for prime time... (1)

Hucko (998827) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031054)

You would have a death wish for computers????

Notes (5, Informative)

asparagus (29121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22028660)

I installed this last week, got it working. It's still very early beta, managed to crash my machine half a dozen times before deciding to wait a little. Remember to do zpool exports before you eject external hard drives. But yes, very promising technology. OS X has gone from having a wonky 1/0 implementation to having one of the better software raid systems available. Back to scoping out four and eight drive usb sata enclosures and cheap 500gb hard drives. ;-)

Re:Notes (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22030688)

Well, if your looking for cheap HDs. Here is a GREAT script a guy wrote.

http://forre.st/storage [forre.st]

It works with newegg.com to find the best deals on HDs

Re:Notes (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031924)

Take a look around at some of the other pages on that site. Amazing considering the one who wrote this script is 14 yrs old and is already doing some very impressive scripting and design. Keep at it and you will have no problems whatsoever finding a job! The world can certainly use more true hackers.

Re:Notes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22030896)

Based on your limited experience with this filesystem, would you say that it would make sense to port the source code to Solaris? I'm sure there's a lot of Sun users who could use a shot in the arm like this right about now.

When do they say, "Just Kidding!" (4, Informative)

osgeek (239988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22029038)

This reads like a nerd's unsubstantiated wet dream [macosforge.org] .

An absolutely, positively, amazing feature set. I can't wait until it's stable enough for production use. After 7 years of staying away from Apple products, I'm going back to the Mac.

Re:When do they say, "Just Kidding!" (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030460)

ZFS is also available in FreeBSD 7 and OpenSolaris (which should be the most stablest of all).

Re:When do they say, "Just Kidding!" (2, Interesting)

osgeek (239988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031544)

Every time I have to mess with Solaris, I'm annoyed at how much dorking I have to do with it to get it to have a reasonably modern environment and set of tools on it like a fresh install of Ubuntu or Fedora Core.

FreeBSD... maybe... I kind of like the Apple hardware, though.

Re:When do they say, "Just Kidding!" (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030938)

And just think, it's been working for years under Solaris (okay, working internally for a little over 2 years, and available externally for over a year).... =)

Why wait? OpenSolaris (x86, x64, SPARC) or download a free license of the real deal Solaris (X86, x64, SPARC)....

www.opensolaris.org or www.sun.com

either way - zfs rocks, and they keep adding more features frequently....

Re:When do they say, "Just Kidding!" (1)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032062)

Working, yes, however, there are is no ZFS support in the Solaris installer or jumpstart system, and Sparc Solaris still has no way to boot ZFS which is something that has been doable on X86 for months. Sun needs to step up and show some serious production level ZFS support if they want to keep us Solaris admins from defecting away from Sun hardware.

Re:When do they say, "Just Kidding!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031210)

A guy who changes operating systems just for a file system? Props to you, that is some hardcore cred, right there!

>>After 7 years of staying away from Apple products, I'm going back to the Mac.

Re:When do they say, "Just Kidding!" (1)

Animixer (134376) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031238)

As far as I know, it has been quite stable for some time on Solaris and there's no need to use Apple products (started in the 6/06 release of Solaris 10 if I remember correctly).

Please correct if I am wrong.

Re:When do they say, "Just Kidding!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031408)

After 7 years of staying away from Apple products
wtf? were you a die-hard classic user or something? 7 years ago is pretty much the introduction of OS X... you left Apple just when they started getting a clue?

Re:When do they say, "Just Kidding!" (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031578)

Combination of being sick of waiting for them to get a clue and the job paying me to do Windows and buying my machines for me. ZFS is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's wallet.

Hmm (1)

Forkenhoppen (16574) | more than 6 years ago | (#22029084)

I wonder what Apple thinks of this.

Re:Hmm (5, Informative)

wootest (694923) | more than 6 years ago | (#22029468)

Since Apple employs Noel Dellofano, hosts Mac OS Forge, has incorporated the stable read-only bits in the latest Mac OS X Server and makes a slightly older build of the same code as the Mac OS Forge read/write version available on their developer web site, I think they approve.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22029702)

Well then I wonder what Sun thinks of this.

Re:Hmm (3, Interesting)

leamanc (961376) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030082)

Well then I wonder what Sun thinks of this.

Not that it really matters what Sun thinks about their F/OSS filesystem that anyone can download, modify or incorporate into their OS, but they are excited about Apple's adoption of ZFS, and have been contributing resources to the 'ZFS for OS X' project. It was widely rumored that ZFS would at least be an option in the shipping version of Leopard, if not the default filesystem. Someone over at Sun was even crowing about this a few months before Leopard was released.

I'd say Sun looks favorably upon this.

Sun CEO Encourages Apple to Use ZFS (5, Informative)

this great guy (922511) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030528)

I'd say Sun looks favorably upon this.
Of course they do. Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz encourages Apple to use ZFS [sun.com] (direct from his blog): "As an example, Apple is including ZFS is in their upcoming "Leopard" OS X release. This is happening without any payment to Sun (that's how truly free software works). Under the license, we've waived all rights to sue them for any of the patents or copyright associated with ZFS. We've let Apple know we will use our patent portfolio to protect them and the Mac ZFS community from Net App. With or without a commercial relationship to Sun."

Re:Hmm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22030808)

Well then, what does Paris Hilton think of this?

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22030916)

She was so excited she promptly released a new "secret" sex video hosted on a server using ZFS. Although, admittedly, the server was running FreeBSD.

Re:Hmm (5, Funny)

johnslater (61055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030970)

Paris Hilton? Think?

Linux? (1)

reacocard (1043858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22029258)

Interesting, I wonder if this could help in the effort to port ZFS to linux? It'd depend on the license they release it under though.

Re:Linux? (2, Insightful)

nguyenhm (577058) | more than 6 years ago | (#22029602)

I would imagine the kernel bits are significantly different, though mere availability of source, if not previously available, would likely help.

Re:Linux? (3, Informative)

lokedhs (672255) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030554)

The sources has already been available [opensolaris.org] under an open source license since ZFS came out.

Re:Linux? (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030486)

It's not a technical problem preventing linux usage so much as a political problem and a license problem. Unless this convinces those zealots that 1) FUSE isn't good enough and 2) CDDL is FREE, it won't do jack shit for linux.

Re:Linux? (0)

Eighty7 (1130057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031074)

Well then lets do what we do best & path around the damage like we did with mp3s. There's already a GUI [ubuntuforums.org] out for kernel building. Someone add a button for "Build with ZFS support." Isn't it just that simple?

Or.. (1)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031678)

Unless some people who 1)have the technical knowledge and 2)don't care about licensing restrictions make a linux port of it anyway. Seriously, who is going to do anything about it? Is Sun going to sue people for increasing compatibility with their products? Or is Richard Stallman going to hunt them down and beat them to death with the Free Software club?

Frankly, no one is going to do anything about it, so I look forward to the day that common sense breaks out and we quit letting legal mumbo jumgo get in the way of progress.

Re:Linux? (4, Interesting)

zsau (266209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031934)

It's not a question of whether people thing CDDL is Free or not. There are "zealots" like Stallman who think that both GPL v2 and GPL v3 are free. But he would be the first to say you can't include GPL v3 code, like a future relicensed version of the Solaris kernel, in GPL v2 code, like the Linux kernel.

And I think most people will agree with you that Fuse isn't good enough. But at the moment, there are only two options: complete reimplementation from the ground up, and Fuse. Fuse is easiest.

Great new filesystems (4, Interesting)

PhotoGuy (189467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22029622)

It's a shame that I'm gunshy with new (to the OS) filesystems. ZFS has so much to offer, but every time I try out a new filesystem, I end up with data loss, even ones that are supposedly new and wonderful and robust. (Even when ext3 was new but stable, I lost stuff on it.) I can't wait to hear lots of positive feedback on its stability and performance, so I can get up the nerve to try it.

Re:Great new filesystems (4, Informative)

mcowger (456754) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030144)

Consider my comment some of that.

I've had no problems with 5T+ datasets, and we even get about a 10-20% performance boost out of it compared to UFS.

snapshotting & all those neat features work totally as expected.

Only minor issue I see is that a zfs send is single threaded, so you cant parralellize it over multiple processes easily.

Re:Great new filesystems (2, Funny)

stinerman (812158) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030564)

Only minor issue I see is that a zfs send is single threaded, so you cant parralellize it over multiple processes easily.

Well, a multithreaded filesystem is only a performance hack anyway. :-)

Total garbage - has no error result codes! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22030474)

Total garbage - has no error result codes! Always assumes all writes have no failures, so unplugging a firewire drive or a USB drive or eSata drive guaranteed to either kernel panic or otherwise crash the OS.

The Finder itself is lied to.

This is such an amateurish implementation, I am shocked that the source was even offered.

Shame on Apple for funding this quality of work.

I will admit, a few years ago, DURING BOOT, linux had a similar design bug and all IDE writes during boot had no error codes returned. But this is different. This is 2008.

Re:Total garbage - has no error result codes! (5, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030536)

Total garbage - has no error result codes! Always assumes all writes have no failures, so unplugging a firewire drive or a USB drive or eSata drive guaranteed to either kernel panic or otherwise crash the OS.

ZFS is designed to perform writes asynchronously. If the write should be able to complete, it returns success and then goes off to do it. It's a different way of thinking about a filesystem. You need to do a "zpool export" or something before you can unplug a detachable disk to avoid the panic when you unplug it. That's not a bug. It's by design.

The Finder itself is lied to.

No it isn't. You're just misunderstanding the semantics of ZFS.

This is such an amateurish implementation, I am shocked that the source was even offered.

No it isn't. It's just not a filesystem that's suitable for the masses. Average users cannot understand or manage an advanced storage pool system like ZFS. They're better off with filesystems that make sense to them, like HFS+, ext2 or NTFS.

Shame on Apple for funding this quality of work.

Shame on all the geeks for telling everyone that ZFS will solve all their problems. ZFS is great under certain circumstances. It does what it does very well, but it isn't a filesystem for the masses.

I will admit, a few years ago, DURING BOOT, linux had a similar design bug and all IDE writes during boot had no error codes returned. But this is different. This is 2008.

Just plain not reporting errors is a bug. ZFS asynchronous write semantics is intentional, although counter-intuitive, behaviour.

Re:Total garbage - has no error result codes! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22030768)

it isn't a filesystem for the masses.

Huh? Music, movies, Office, and porn. And lots of web browsing (goes with the porn).

Do I want ZFS or not?

Re:Total garbage - has no error result codes! (1)

Spy Hunter (317220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031512)

You need to do a "zpool export" or something before you can unplug a detachable disk to avoid the panic when you unplug it. That's not a bug. It's by design.
Well then it's a stupid design. Of course the filesystem can't guarantee no data loss in this situation, but a kernel panic is *not* a valid response. Requiring explicit unmount commands for removable drives is a design decision that should have died when we moved away from non-journaled filesystems.

Disclaimer: I'm assuming that ZFS on Mac does, in fact, cause kernel panics when an external drive is removed without unmounting; as the parent posts imply. I haven't tested it myself...

Re:Total garbage - has no error result codes! (3, Informative)

Nomen Publicus (1150725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031880)

The design of ZFS is intended to ensure that the data on the disk is _always_ a valid file system. If a system panics when a ZFS file system is unexpectedly removed, that is a different issue.

Then, of course, checksumming everything does wonders to protect against bit rot and flaky cables.

Best ZFS Presentation (5, Informative)

this great guy (922511) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030476)

I have been using ZFS (on Solaris) for more than a year, both at work and at home, and I am following closely the latest developments. IMHO the best intro on ZFS is the official ZFS slides (36 pages): http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfs_last.pdf [opensolaris.org]

Re:Best ZFS Presentation (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030590)

Nice slide show. I want one.

But what are we going to do with all of our dev>null jokes?

Re:Best ZFS Presentation (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030602)

I think the best introduction is the screencast where the guy overwrites [opensolaris.org] his disk from /dev/random and zfs keeps on trucking.

Re:Best ZFS Presentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031190)

Best slide from that: "A product is only as good as its test suite".

Makes me wonder what the test suites for other filesystems, or my Linux hardware drivers, look like, or if they even exist.

For example, I'm excited by the possibilities that Compiz can offer (though the current round of compositing window managers are pretty bad). But every time I try out Compiz, it runs great for a couple hours, and then hangs hard. Or (more recently) it runs really fast but has severe drawing errors all over the place. Why isn't there a "compiz-test" program that I can run which tries out all the graphics card features it will need, and reports back either "Pass!" or "Fail -- graphics won't look right" (or a crash, but then at least I'm expecting it)?

My boss would give me a hard time if I ever checked in code without tests, and yet, in the free software community, that seems to be not just common, but perfectly acceptable.

Port it to Linux (0)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030584)

This is my humble request to those who understand code to port this file system to Linux. Reason being that on my Mythbuntu box, deleting and accessing large video files makes my system choke. It it worse when I delete the last remaining video since I have to reboot the system.

I say all this because I know Apple stuff is pretty well refined and I know for a fact that ZFS beat all native Linux file systems according to some benchmarks on operations with large files exceeding 3.7GB. There were reports that ZFS could copy the entire Linux kernel source code in only 3 seconds! Amazing, but not good with software or hardware raid.

As I write this, I am reminded that there could be license issues with ZFS source code but hope none of this stuff prevents a gifted slashdotter from porting this ZFS bugger to Linux. I am eagerly waiting.

Re:Port it to Linux (3, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031000)

You should reformat with XFS.

Re:Port it to Linux (0, Troll)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031028)

No.

Use OpenSolaris instead.

Linux's GPL forbids importing code from the CDDL. Solaris is also a much better operating system.

Re:Port it to Linux (2, Interesting)

Hucko (998827) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031174)

I'm considering it, but your answer just says there is two different methodologies while claiming that one is better than the other. I am more wary of CDDL just as I am wary of Lucent's licence for Plan 9 (for sheer clever thinking, it would be my prefered OS -- discounting I haven't learnt how to use it effectively. Not as clever as the OS).

Re:Port it to Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031076)

I'm really wishing it'd get into Linux too, but I don't think it's going to happen.

First there's the licensing issue, so the whole thing would likely have to be done from scratch.

Also, last I heard the Linux devs aren't very impressed with ZFS, one of them even went so far as to call it a "rampant layering violation".

You can get support with FUSE here [wizy.org] , but I'm not sure how well it works, and I've heard FUSE isn't very fast.

That's nice. (4, Funny)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030646)

Now, if we can only get it to talk to important things like NTFS, and Ext3, and Reiser...

Re:That's nice. (5, Funny)

Rebelgecko (893016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030732)

If you want to talk to Reiser, visiting hours are 9AM-5PM on weekends.

Good One! :o) (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031058)

Hadn't thought of that...

Re:That's nice. (1)

y86 (111726) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030746)

Reiser......... I'm not ending up in Jail?!?! You use it.

Re:That's nice. (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030868)

I agree with NTFS, but I doubt ext3 is important to more than a tiny handful of Mac users, and I'm surprised *anyone*'s using Reiser anymore. While MacOS users have been able to read NTFS for years, it would be nice to be able to format external devices as NTFS and use them natively on MacOS. Of course, now that FUSE is ported to MacOS, word is that NTFS is pretty stable on it (more stable than this ZFS port, from what I've heard), if slow.

Re:That's nice. (1)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031038)

NTFS under FUSE on Leopard rocks. Just wish it was as easy (and free) to get Windows to talk back to the HFS+ partitions...

Re:That's nice. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031070)

You pretty much said what I was thinking, but did not write. It would be nice to have access to NTFS and Ext3 systems, because those are probably the most common non-Apple FS around. Journaling FS, anyway.

Re:That's nice. (1)

jasonwea (598696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031970)

May I ask what you would expect people to be using on their Linux boxes instead of ReiserFS?

"he is making" (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22030758)

I know it may be unheard of to those reading /., but Noel is a girl.

Re:"he is making" (2, Funny)

celle (906675) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032058)

"I know it may be unheard of to those reading /., but Noel is a girl."

Oh my Lord!

narrator: "and the Ronald Reagan picture drops from the wall in Cmdr Taco's office."

So what, move on guys..??

he's a she (0, Troll)

nobody/incognito (63469) | more than 6 years ago | (#22030988)

a damn fine she at that

mod uP (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22031030)

cans can become copy a 17 M3g file tired arg0ments THE PROJECT TO BSDI is also dead, and piss cocktail. numbers continue

Actually, (5, Informative)

antijava (128456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031156)

Noel is a she. I met her last year soon after Apple hired her away from Sun.

What if someone did port ZFS to Linux? (3, Interesting)

halfdan the black (638018) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031520)

Suppose I ported ZFS to Linux (not that I could, just suppose) as a native kernel module, and published the source code. If then I used ZFS on Linux, and some others also grabbed the 'Linux ZFS' code, built it and used it. What laws if any would I be breaking? Who and under what grounds could sue me / Linux ZFS users?

Re:What if someone did port ZFS to Linux? (2, Interesting)

corychristison (951993) | more than 6 years ago | (#22031906)

Who and under what grounds could sue me / Linux ZFS users?
Short answer: nobody and nothing.

Long answer: The biggest issue (to my understanding) is that it will not be included in the official kernel. Google sponsored it to be included in FUSE to cover their butts because I suppose they just didn't want to get involved in the issues. I don't see why it couldn't be released as a patchset that someone would have to patch and install manually, at the very least.
But then again, this is my view and understanding of it. Although I may be wrong, I don't really care... I just want ZFS (without moving from Linux) :-(
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?