PDA

View Full Version : Apple Seeds ZFS Read/Write Developer Preview 1.1 for Leopard




MacRumors
Oct 4, 2007, 05:37 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple has seeded version 1.1 of ZFS for Mac OS X to Developers this week. The preview updates a previous build (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/26/zfs-read-write-developer-beta/) released on June 26, 2007.

In the release notes, Apple confirms that the original release of Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) will only offer Read-Only ZFS. As a result, no ZFS pools or filesystems can be modified or created under 10.5.0. This developer's preview enables full read/write capability, including the creation/destruction of ZFS pools and filesystems.

ZFS is described (http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/whatis/) as "a fundamentally new approach to data management. We've blown away 20 years of obsolete assumptions, eliminated complexity at the source, and created a storage system that's actually a pleasure to use."

The initial version of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is rumored to be released on October 26th, 2007 (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/04/mac-os-x-leopard-on-october-26th/). It's unclear when Leopard will incorporate full Read/Write ZFS support, but it seems clear that Apple is working on adding this functionality.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/04/apple-seeds-zfs-read-write-developer-preview-1-1-for-leopard/)



DMann
Oct 4, 2007, 05:40 PM
This is phenomenal! ZFS is here!!! This alone makes Leopard worth the upgrade. Read/Write will be developed down the road - this marks the beginning of ZFS.

psychofreak
Oct 4, 2007, 05:40 PM
Awesome! Hopefully in 10.6 it will be bootable default :)

zwida
Oct 4, 2007, 05:42 PM
Awesome! Hopefully in 10.6 it will be bootable default :)

I don't even want to try to get my brain around 10.6. 2009 at the earliest, right?

Cromulent
Oct 4, 2007, 05:42 PM
Sounds interesting. I like the fact that Apple are still following through with this. HFS+ is definitely reaching the end of it's useful life.

bananas
Oct 4, 2007, 05:42 PM
I hope ZFS read/write support gets added to Leopard when it's ready. Not a moment earlier.

ZFS does sound like a cool filesystem.

spotlight07
Oct 4, 2007, 05:45 PM
So the Sun guy was telling the truth after all.

Peace
Oct 4, 2007, 05:45 PM
I hope ZFS read/write support gets added to Leopard when it's ready. Not a moment earlier.

ZFS does sound like a cool filesystem.

I'm not gonna break my NDA but I will say it's fast as hell..

psychofreak
Oct 4, 2007, 05:46 PM
a cool filesystem.Not three words you often see together :)

RichP
Oct 4, 2007, 05:47 PM
I wouldnt mind Leopard coming out the end of November if we could see ZFS in the initial release. It is going to be a big improvement to data management.

boxlight
Oct 4, 2007, 05:51 PM
Average iMac user here. What does ZFS do that I might notice -- will ZFS matter to me? Serious question.

psychofreak
Oct 4, 2007, 05:51 PM
I wouldnt mind Leopard coming out the end of November if we could see ZFS in the initial release. It is going to be a big improvement to data management.

If we waited for everything cool that shoulda/coulda/woulda been here by now, it will be ages until Leopard. I personally was hoping for a truly resolution independant scaleable OS, while others wanted that faster OS switching shown on the Apple website...

pounce
Oct 4, 2007, 05:52 PM
yeah, i'd be all over having zfs. this could be a very good thing.

QuarterSwede
Oct 4, 2007, 05:54 PM
Average iMac user here. What does ZFS do that I might notice -- will ZFS matter to me? Serious question.
Not just a serious question but a very good one at that.

dashiel
Oct 4, 2007, 05:55 PM
nice!

i think we'll see this used in airport disk and appleTV applications.

Brendon Bauer
Oct 4, 2007, 05:56 PM
Average iMac user here. What does ZFS do that I might notice -- will ZFS matter to me? Serious question.

I'm wondering the same thing. What's the difference/big deal? :rolleyes:

I'm all for it if it's "new and cool" :p

brewno
Oct 4, 2007, 05:57 PM
It's gonna be one of those "One more thing.... ZFS is implemented and it's bootable".

psychofreak
Oct 4, 2007, 05:58 PM
It's gonna be one of those "One more thing.... ZFS is implemented and it's bootable".I seriously doubt that...

QuarterSwede
Oct 4, 2007, 06:01 PM
10 Reasons to reformat your hard drives (http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1446/zfs_ten_reasons_to_reformat_your_hard_drives)

Brendon Bauer
Oct 4, 2007, 06:02 PM
It's gonna be one of those "One more thing.... ZFS is implemented and it's bootable".

I don't think we'll be hearing any "One more thing..."s anytime soon. At least none that are significant. Apple seems to have spread it's resources thin at the moment... Just my thought. I could be wrong, and I hope I am! :rolleyes:

RRK
Oct 4, 2007, 06:03 PM
So the Sun guy was telling the truth after all.

Sweet! That loose end bothered me.

sblasl
Oct 4, 2007, 06:05 PM
OK, I'll bite.

Just what is it that we will see in OS 10.5 as it relates to ZFS? If this is what is stated, than what do we get?

"In the release notes, Apple confirms that the original release of Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) will only offer Read-Only ZFS. As a result, no ZFS pools or filesystems can be modified or created under 10.5.0. This developer's preview enables full read/write capability, including the creation/destruction of ZFS pools and filesystems."

rented mule
Oct 4, 2007, 06:06 PM
I seriously doubt that...

My guess is that it's gonna find it's way into a point upgrade just like HFS+ Journaled did. Someone mentioned that the notes say that ZFS requires a GUID volume. Why would it require GUID if it's not bootable?

semireg
Oct 4, 2007, 06:07 PM
I'm wondering the same thing. What's the difference/big deal? :rolleyes:

I'm all for it if it's "new and cool" :p

ZFS will make time machine faster and more usable by allowing snapshots at the filesystem level. You'll be able to plugin an external drive and zam, a few ZFS commands later and a full clone of your mac is made on the external drive. All of the snapshots in between backups can be time machined to.

semireg
Oct 4, 2007, 06:08 PM
I'm positive that ZFS has, and always will be an integral part of time-machine. The reason it was "pulled" was because the thunder was stolen from Job's by the Sun exec. Always been there... nothing to see here.

psychofreak
Oct 4, 2007, 06:08 PM
My guess is that it's gonna find it's way into a point upgrade just like HFS+ Journaled did. Someone mentioned that the notes say that ZFS requires a GUID volume. Why would it require GUID if it's not bootable?

To create bootable ZFS systems one needs to use scripts or do it manually. The ZFS Boot project recently successfully added boot support to the OpenSolaris project, and is available in recent builds of Solaris Nevada. ZFS boot is currently planned for a Solaris 10 update in late 2007.

Thanks to this from Wikipedia (Solaris 10 is out now so its a bit old) it seems to me that bootable ZFS is in its very early stages...not good enough for Leopard...

ChrisA
Oct 4, 2007, 06:09 PM
I had figured that Apple had decided to rip ZFS out of Leopard because it was not "ready for prime time". But this implies they are only delaying ZFS until after the the initial October release of Leopard. This is great. Once these terrabyte drive become common and people start having stacks of them ZFS will really be the only way to go.

What I can't wait to see is the user land GUI Apple builds for ZFS. Sun's user land ZFS stuff is horrible. no worse than that. I'm sure, given time Aple will show us the ZFS can be conceptually easy even for "the masses"

Anyone who wants to play with ZFS right now: Buy VMware fusion and install Solaris inside Fusion. ZFS works just fine in Solaris Solaris is free so there is nothing stopping you.

BornAgainMac
Oct 4, 2007, 06:11 PM
I hope on Friday, Apple finally makes Leopard the home page with tons of new information and the final feature list. I bet the lights are on at Apple 24x7 to get this cat out of the door.

Someone said that Time Machine doesn't work with ZFS. Is that true?

Brendon Bauer
Oct 4, 2007, 06:11 PM
Does ZFS increase the speed of your computer as well?

mdriftmeyer
Oct 4, 2007, 06:11 PM
Ahh yes. People whining very recently about ZFS missing.

I do recall telling those folks who want to know about Developer concerns to sign up for a paid ADC account.

Case in point.

Cromulent
Oct 4, 2007, 06:13 PM
ZFS is going to be a great addition to Mac OS X Server 10.5.

iJawn108
Oct 4, 2007, 06:14 PM
Woohoo... maybe I will get leopard... eventually or if someone gets me it for christmas. lol

elppa
Oct 4, 2007, 06:14 PM
So the Sun guy was telling the truth after all.

No, because from what I remember he said it would be the default filesystem.

That is not the case.

padmasana
Oct 4, 2007, 06:14 PM
This is great news! Clearly Apple is laying the groundwork for ZFS in Leopard and I couldn't be happier!

psychofreak
Oct 4, 2007, 06:18 PM
So the Sun guy was telling the truth after all.

That must have been the most boring keynote I've ever watched...about something so interesting...

Amazing that SJ can excite me with iPod socks when they won't even fit my 3G iPod :)

chubad
Oct 4, 2007, 06:19 PM
Does ZFS increase the speed of your computer as well?

No but Safari will be "snappier"! :D

mandoman
Oct 4, 2007, 06:20 PM
I'll be more excited about ZFS when it is been tried
and tested for awhile under Solaris. Make sure it is rock
solid in the enterprise market first. I'd also be interested if and when any of the Linux distributions pick this up?

I've been wanting to put together a NAS Raid5 setup. Now
I want a NAS RaidZ setup! Maybe in a year or two...

ooburai
Oct 4, 2007, 06:20 PM
Average iMac user here. What does ZFS do that I might notice -- will ZFS matter to me? Serious question.

I'm relatively new to the Mac OS X space and I seriously doubt that there will be any direct whiz-bang features that the average user will take advantage of, but ZFS is a seriously good thing if it lives up to its initial first impressions.

ZFS has a number of quite advanced features that would (if actually implemented in a timely fashion) take Mac OS X from having one of the most primitive filesystems in the Unix space to the most advanced (other than Solaris obviously). e.g.:

- self healing filesystems
- snapshotting, cloning
- dynamic striping across devices (i.e. the ability to add additional disks to a pool and have them integrated automagically)
- a number of features to improve performance over traditional filesystems and which could vastly improve performance over HFS+
- 128 bit filesystem so most of the common capacity limitations will not be encountered in the near future (size, pools, numbers of files, etc.)

There are others, but most of the Unix world is fairly excited about ZFS and in fact the whiff of the rumor that ZFS would be supported in some indeterminate future version of OS X was one of the reasons that finally decided to switch to a Mac. In short I don't think the "average" user will really notice that much difference but it gives Mac OS a modern filesystem and addresses a number of future problems while opening a lot of doors to future features and functionality.

There are a few neat demos here:

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/

Honestly I sort of doubt that ZFS will be available as a bootable filesystem in 10.5, given that it isn't even 100% integrated into Solaris yet, but I would love to be surprised.

rented mule
Oct 4, 2007, 06:29 PM
To create bootable ZFS systems one needs to use scripts or do it manually. The ZFS Boot project recently successfully added boot support to the OpenSolaris project, and is available in recent builds of Solaris Nevada. ZFS boot is currently planned for a Solaris 10 update in late 2007.

Thanks to this from Wikipedia (Solaris 10 is out now so its a bit old) it seems to me that bootable ZFS is in its very early stages...not good enough for Leopard...

I was under the impression that ZFS under Solaris was not bootable because it was usually on a computer with BIOS instead of EFI (a larger firmware storage). Since Apple uses EFI, it might be possible to do things not normally possible with the old BIOS firmware.

And while we're at it, and like someone mentioned in this very thread, Schwartz himself said ZFS would be the default filesystem on Mac OS X 10.5. You can't have a default filesystem if the filesystem can't boot. There had to be some truth to what he said...he distinctly said 'default' did he not?

ChrisA
Oct 4, 2007, 06:37 PM
Average iMac user here. What does ZFS do that I might notice -- will ZFS matter to me? Serious question.

If you only have one physical disk drive, I think the only features you will notice are:

1) A time machine like ability to retrieve older versions of saved files. (Time Machine
does this by copying data to a second drive, ZFS does it by not over writing the
data on the first drive.)
2) almost zero chance of file corruption due to an end to end checksum scheme
3) ability to make a backup of a running drive that is a clean
"snapshot in time". Changes being made while a backup is in progress is a problem that ZFS solves
4) can make a RAID like system using multiple drives that you can reconfigure live buy adding more drives

If Apple does some work and does a good job of integrating ZFS withf inder and the desktop then users will be able to just plug in a disk drive and have more storage and not have to ever see a drive icon or know what drive their data is on. Also as you add drives not only should storage spce scale but ALL of your files will read and right faster. I doubt Apple will make it work this way, not at first but maybe by 10.6?

tuartboy
Oct 4, 2007, 06:41 PM
Can we expect a migration from HFS+ to ZFS if/when the filesystem is write-able and stable, or is that technically improbable?

Peace
Oct 4, 2007, 06:41 PM
The obvious question people should be asking is what is the purpose of ZFS "read-only" in Leopard ?
eh?

think about it.

rented mule
Oct 4, 2007, 06:43 PM
If you only have one physical disk drive, I think the only features you will notice are:

1) A time machine like ability to retrieve older versions of saved files.
2) almost zero chance of file corruption due to an end to end checksum scheme
3) ability to make a backup of a running drive that is a clean
"snapshot in time". Changes being made while a backup is inprogress is a problem the ZFS solves
4) can make a RAID like system using multiple drives that you can reconfigure live buy adding more drives

If Apple does some work and does a good job of integrating ZFS withfinder and the desktop then users will beable to just plug in a disk drive and have more storage and not have to ever see a drive icon or know what drive their data is on. Also as you add drives not only should storage spce scale but ALL of your files will read and right faster. I doubt Apple will make it work this way, not at first but maybe by 10.6?

I agree...the default should be a single pool that grows when you add new hard drives. And advanced options within Disk Utility should allow people to create new pools to act as a partition. Of course, only Mac OS X 10.5 (or 10.6) and later would be able to use ZFS so perhaps some users would prefer having at least one drive with HFS+ for earlier versions of OS X or FAT32 or NTFS.

Nicky G
Oct 4, 2007, 06:49 PM
The obvious question people should be asking is what is the purpose of ZFS "read-only" in Leopard ?
eh?

think about it.

This has been bothering me for a while -- there's got to be a reason for it, but it's tough to consider what scenarios exist that would make it terribly useful. Sounds like you know, and we may just have to wait and be surprised. ;)

Digital Skunk
Oct 4, 2007, 06:52 PM
Does ZFS increase the speed of your computer as well?

From what little I can read from the nerd notes.... yes, but only in certain areas such as Virtual Memory, and backups which may make the overall system run faster or not.

ZFS is going to be a great addition to Mac OS X Server 10.5.

Hell yes. I hope that Apple actually did what I am thinking and put ZFS in ProRez 422, their HD compression Codec, and the AJA IO HD. Those were breakthrough techs in the broadcasting industry and if ZFS or some form of it were used in Mac OS 10.5, 10.5 Server, and the late (pushed backed release date like Leopard) then Apple would have utilized ZFS much more than we expect.

p.s. I am not a DNA so no flames, I am trying my best to decipher all the nerd speak that is on the web about ZFS.

ChrisA
Oct 4, 2007, 06:53 PM
You can't have a default filesystem if the filesystem can't boot. There had to be some truth to what he said...he distinctly said 'default' did he not?

You can boot from a small /boot HFS partition, mount ZFS and then "chroot" into the the ZFS system. Maybe the new Apple computers will have this small /boot partition in flash memory? This would give the Macbook an "instant boot" ability. I can think of other scenarios too where the default file system is not the one you booted from

photomaniac
Oct 4, 2007, 06:53 PM
So the Sun guy was telling the truth after all.

LOL I was thinking the same thing! ...Apple was probably pissed because this guy got so excited about Apple supporting ZFS from Sun and couldn't keep his mouth shut... haha

ChrisA
Oct 4, 2007, 06:57 PM
p.s. I am not a DNA so no flames, I am trying my best to decipher all the nerd speak that is on the web about ZFS.

The best place is the "ZFS learning Center" on Sun's web site
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/zfs_learning_center.jsp

seashellz
Oct 4, 2007, 07:01 PM
ZFS-to boldly go where Microsoft could never go-even if it wanted to...

Rocketman
Oct 4, 2007, 07:02 PM
The obvious question people should be asking is what is the purpose of ZFS "read-only" in Leopard ?
eh?

think about it.

To fix bugs one "layer" at a time.

As for the good/obvious question, what's in it for end users?

It is the back end to real "Time Machine".

With many features/benefits not demonstrated yet.

Rocketman

RichP
Oct 4, 2007, 07:02 PM
My attraction to ZFS and my willingness to wait for it is that it seems like such a filesystem is well suited for TimeMachine.

Why is it I feel Leopard is going to be a kind of half-baked release?

psychofreak
Oct 4, 2007, 07:04 PM
Why is it I feel Leopard is going to be a kind of half-baked release?

Probably because it is...

psychofreak
Oct 4, 2007, 07:12 PM
What kind of company that stakes alot of it's reputation on it's operating system would plan on releasing the new version of it within day's of declaring the GM? I think it is risky & it is half-baked.:confused:

This might not be a pretty sight?

My attraction to ZFS and my willingness to wait for it is that it seems like such a filesystem is well suited for TimeMachine.

Why is it I feel Leopard is going to be a kind of half-baked release?

Probably because it is...

What kind of company that stakes alot of it's reputation on it's operating system would plan on releasing the new version of it within day's of declaring the GM?A company that faces opposition from an OS with a LOT of glass and shiny stuff that is quickly overtaking its main product...

Peace
Oct 4, 2007, 07:17 PM
You guys do know what GM means right?

loveturtle
Oct 4, 2007, 07:19 PM
ZFS will make time machine faster and more usable by allowing snapshots at the filesystem level. You'll be able to plugin an external drive and zam, a few ZFS commands later and a full clone of your mac is made on the external drive. All of the snapshots in between backups can be time machined to.

Would you be so kind as to demonstrate to me exactly what these "few ZFS commands" are?

This is probably the fourth time I've posted this on these forums but I will say it again. That is not how ZFS snapshots work.

Please stop spreading misinformation. You don't have to make things up to hang, not everyone can be an expert.

Telp
Oct 4, 2007, 07:24 PM
I still dont understand any part of ZFS, or, i guess, filestsytems in general...Ive been trying to understand since the initial rumor that ZFS was coming, and i still am at square zero, not know a single thing about whats going on, and how this affects me. :(

dernhelm
Oct 4, 2007, 07:24 PM
This has been bothering me for a while -- there's got to be a reason for it, but it's tough to consider what scenarios exist that would make it terribly useful. Sounds like you know, and we may just have to wait and be surprised. ;)

Once they get RW going, Apple will be producing a full blown storage appliance like this (http://www.drobo.com/) one, or this (http://www.sun.com/storagetek/management_software/data_protection/bakbone/ST4500_BackUp_DS_7.25a.pdf) one - only Apple style. Plug it in, let it do the rest. Built on ZFS so it's extendable and more or less bullet proof.

Read only is a different matter - someone else would be producing content and storing it so you can read from it. I remember way back when Linux could only read from NTFS drives. It was useful in its own way, because I could dual-boot into Linux and at least read from my NTFS drive. I suppose read only ZFS could be useful for a similar reason - anyone out there dual booting Solaris with OS/X?

phillipjfry
Oct 4, 2007, 07:25 PM
I hope ZFS is a smash hit. There is alot of excitement built in ZFS and could change a lot about FS's especially when you mix in our future cat

Rocketman
Oct 4, 2007, 07:28 PM
10.5.0 is for all practical purposes a public beta. 10.5.1 will be worth installing for bleeding edge users. 10.5.2 will probably be installed on shipping hardware (if 10.5.0 or 10.5.1 is, that would be "bad"), and will still require several software updates to use reasonably.

If you are a "trailing edge" user, please do yourself a favor and wait for 10.5.3.

Rocketman

To answer Cromulant I am not subject to NDA. Therefore I am free to talk at will.

Cromulent
Oct 4, 2007, 07:35 PM
10.5.0 is for all practical purposes a public beta. 10.5.1 will be worth installing for bleeding edge users. 10.5.2 will probably be installed on shipping hardware (if 10.5.0 or 10.5.1 is, that would be "bad"), and will still require several software updates to use reasonably.

If you are a "trailing edge" user, please do yourself a favor and wait for 10.5.3.

Rocketman

I'd be interested to know if you were basing that or anything. Unless you have been using the developer seeds you can't possibly know that.

Plus whatever you have been using you definitely can't say which point release will make Leopard stable enough for all users.

Rocketman
Oct 4, 2007, 07:43 PM
I still dont understand any part of ZFS, or, i guess, filestsytems in general...Ive been trying to understand since the initial rumor that ZFS was coming, and i still am at square zero, not know a single thing about whats going on, and how this affects me. :(

The defining charactistic is a "storage pool". Pool being 2 or more discs. If a drive fails, the data is safe. If you add a drive to a pool it adds capacity but does not change its "logical" treatment and if you added ANOTHER drive, you increased reliability as well as capacity. The filesystem is in effect an OS that manages data and drives so all you see as a user is the "pool". Think of it as your existing USB thumb drive but with 2-20 totally separate data storage chips such that if 2-7 chips fail or are physically damaged, you are still fully online and safe.

Oh, and it doesn't care if the drives are local, remote, network attached, or accessed via Wimax.

Rocketman

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 4, 2007, 07:46 PM
What if.....

In the initial 10.5 release, Resolution Independent (RI) and ZFS are not incorporated. Instead it will be added in a 10.5.x update.

Reason for this might be that the bugs at present to include ZFS and RI are not quite worked out, and the software would not utilize portion of the components. However once ready it can be added in similar to a plug-in for the OS and you have a Next Generation OS released as promised in October and acquiring extras once the software developers are ready to utilize it.

:apple: did this for Boot Camp, there is a good possibility. :)

Any thoughts?

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 4, 2007, 07:49 PM
10.5.0 is for all practical purposes a public beta. 10.5.1 will be worth installing for bleeding edge users. 10.5.2 will probably be installed on shipping hardware (if 10.5.0 or 10.5.1 is, that would be "bad"), and will still require several software updates to use reasonably.

If you are a "trailing edge" user, please do yourself a favor and wait for 10.5.3.

Rocketman

To answer Cromulant I am not subject to NDA. Therefore I am free to talk at will.

Unless 10.5.1 or 10.5.2 will be released by MWSF '08 along with MBP. :)

Oirectine
Oct 4, 2007, 07:52 PM
The obvious question people should be asking is what is the purpose of ZFS "read-only" in Leopard ?
eh?

think about it.

I'm positive that ZFS has, and always will be an integral part of time-machine. The reason it was "pulled" was because the thunder was stolen from Job's by the Sun exec. Always been there... nothing to see here.

The simple creation of snapshots and clones of filesystems makes living with ZFS so much more enjoyable. A snapshot is a read-only point-in-time copy of a filesystem which takes practically no time to create and uses no additional space at the beginning.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with ZFS=time machine :)

dernhelm
Oct 4, 2007, 08:03 PM
I still dont understand any part of ZFS, or, i guess, filestsytems in general...Ive been trying to understand since the initial rumor that ZFS was coming, and i still am at square zero, not know a single thing about whats going on, and how this affects me. :(

Google is your friend. There is plenty of information out there on Ars Technica and other sources. Much of it is quite accessible even to people without extensive FS knowledge.

Cromulent
Oct 4, 2007, 08:10 PM
To answer Cromulant I am not subject to NDA. Therefore I am free to talk at will.

So you are not basing that off anything then... unless you have downloaded Leopard.

The words arse your pulling out of and information come to mind for some reason.

There is no way as I said before that you can predict what the point releases will do to Leopard in terms of stability and reliability. You have just stated conjecture as fact.

Telp
Oct 4, 2007, 08:11 PM
The defining charactistic is a "storage pool". Pool being 2 or more discs. If a drive fails, the data is safe. If you add a drive to a pool it adds capacity but does not change its "logical" treatment and if you added ANOTHER drive, you increased reliability as well as capacity. The filesystem is in effect an OS that manages data and drives so all you see as a user is the "pool". Think of it as your existing USB thumb drive but with 2-20 totally separate data storage chips such that if 2-7 chips fail or are physically damaged, you are still fully online and safe.

Oh, and it doesn't care if the drives are local, remote, network attached, or accessed via Wimax.

Rocketman

Thats awesome. What does it mean if you only have your internal drive?

ruckus
Oct 4, 2007, 08:14 PM
this is fantastic news indeed! :D

Cromulent
Oct 4, 2007, 08:15 PM
Thats awesome. What does it mean if you only have your internal drive?

It just means that your drive will be one pool with none of the speed advantages gained from having more than one drive in the pool.

twoodcc
Oct 4, 2007, 08:23 PM
music to my ears!

great news! i hope we get write support soon

Mavimao
Oct 4, 2007, 08:25 PM
10 Reasons to reformat your hard drives (http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1446/zfs_ten_reasons_to_reformat_your_hard_drives)

I love this part:

"In a world where 640KB is certainly not enough for computer memory..."

cowm007
Oct 4, 2007, 08:27 PM
ZFS sounds amazing to me in terms of data reliability and integrity. It'll be a beautiful addition to my Desktop where I keep all my media and data and need 100% redundancy of it.

However, I have a MacBook right now and can't see how it would help me out with only one drive available.

DaBrain
Oct 4, 2007, 08:32 PM
The obvious question people should be asking is what is the purpose of ZFS "read-only" in Leopard ?
eh?

think about it.

I'll make a guess. Time machine restorations and file etc.... recall (perhaps with Apple TV also). Like I said it's just a guess as the only thing I know about ZFS is what I have read here and a few links on this issue. :confused:

Nicky G
Oct 4, 2007, 08:34 PM
Once they get RW going, Apple will be producing a full blown storage appliance like this (http://www.drobo.com/) one, or this (http://www.sun.com/storagetek/management_software/data_protection/bakbone/ST4500_BackUp_DS_7.25a.pdf) one - only Apple style. Plug it in, let it do the rest. Built on ZFS so it's extendable and more or less bullet proof.

Well, Apple does already have Xserve RAID, Xserve, & Xsan -- so someone who needs protection for their data already has plenty of options available to them (as well as the benefits of a clustered file system where multiple users can concurrently read-write to the same volume.) There are a bunch of other backup solutions, storage, etc. that are Mac-friendly. However, I agree that ZFS will allow for more people to get some of these kinds of benefits on the desktop.

Wikipedia has a great note relating to the file-number limit of ZFS:

"Although a statement quoted from [this page] asserted that "If 1,000 files were created every second, it would take about 9,000 years to reach the limit of the number of files", this is far short of the reality: If a billion computers each filled a billion individual file systems per second, the time required to reach the limit of the overall system would be almost 1,000 times the estimated age of the universe."

:D

ManchesterTrix
Oct 4, 2007, 08:55 PM
I'm positive that ZFS has, and always will be an integral part of time-machine. The reason it was "pulled" was because the thunder was stolen from Job's by the Sun exec. Always been there... nothing to see here.

And then they released a somewhat unfinished developer's preview as a way to throw everyone off the scent! Genius!

Rocketman
Oct 4, 2007, 08:57 PM
So you are not basing that off anything then... unless you have downloaded Leopard.

The words arse your pulling out of and information come to mind for some reason.

There is no way as I said before that you can predict what the point releases will do to Leopard in terms of stability and reliability. You have just stated conjecture as fact.

I have not downloaded Leopard. My first Leopard license will be when I buy an Apple Computer with it installed (following my own good advise).

I am not pulling info out of my a$$. I spell it better than you do :)

I do have "inside information", but since I am not subject to NDA or civil action I am free to do as I wish with it. I incidentally choose not to discuss "confidential technical details", but I do choose to talk about anything already publicly released or leaked or speculated on by people I know to also be "just outside the loop".

As I have posted to other threads I have been by Steve's house.

That said. The discussion is not reliant on non-public info to be accurate and relevant. ZFS is not merely the next thing, it is either the last thing or the next to last thing ever. It simply rocks.

We are entering the "cloud stage" of computing.

We now need Web 2.0 too.

Rocketman

vertgo
Oct 4, 2007, 09:00 PM
the main reason I wanted ZFS was to build a RAIDZ for video editing.

For everyone who thinks that ZFS read only is for time machine, you gotta understand, you have to write to a ZFS pool before it can snapshot it.

I think the reason that it's read only is that it's easier to read a filesystem than write it (Observe how long we've had read access to NTFS drives but not write access in OSX).

And yes I doubt it is going to be the main filesystem for at least another OS release, but i would be happy to be able to connect 4 drives to a mac Pro in 3 months and make a very fast, reliable pool. Or a mac mini :)

nickelcokes
Oct 4, 2007, 09:03 PM
You can boot from a small /boot HFS partition, mount ZFS and then "chroot" into the the ZFS system. Maybe the new Apple computers will have this small /boot partition in flash memory? This would give the Macbook an "instant boot" ability. I can think of other scenarios too where the default file system is not the one you booted from

You wouldn't chroot. You would just boot from a small partition and mount the appropriate root filesystem.

Cromulent
Oct 4, 2007, 09:04 PM
I have not downloaded Leopard. My first Leopard license will be when I buy an Apple Computer with it installed (following my own good advise).

Excellent.

I am not pulling info out of my a$$. I spell it better than you do :)

An ass is a donkey or mule.

I do have "inside information", but since I am not subject to NDA or civil action I am free to do as I wish with it. I incidentally choose not to discuss "confidential technical details", but I do choose to talk about anything already publicly released or leaked or speculated on by people I know to also be "just outside the loop".

Ah, a reliable source if I ever heard one.

That said. The discussion is not reliant on non-public info to be accurate and relevant. ZFS is not merely the next thing, it is either the last thing or the next to last thing ever. It simply rocks.

We are entering the "cloud stage" of computing.

We now need Web 2.0 too.

Rocketman

I agree ZFS is going to be a great improvement. What I took against was you claiming that 10.5 would effectively still be beta software. Plus the claim that it wouldn't be ready for primetime until 10.5.3. This you surely do not know.

vertgo
Oct 4, 2007, 09:05 PM
It's been firmly established that the time machine that is in developer seeds now has been implemented using some metadata on HFS+

http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/08/15/4995

PS That's also a great article for in analysis of ZFS in 10.5

Rocketman
Oct 4, 2007, 09:12 PM
Ah, a reliable source if I ever heard one.


I do not care how reliable you feel I am. However just to establish by bona fides I took the liberty to make and post several "predictions" last year, and follow and document them, then posted the results to macrumors for posterity.

83% accurate.

Nonetheless, my advise is to trust not what you hear and only half of what you see. Real reporters dual source. I do too.

Rocketman

phytonix
Oct 4, 2007, 09:22 PM
ZFS vs WinFS who will win?

Elektronkind
Oct 4, 2007, 09:25 PM
Can we expect a migration from HFS+ to ZFS if/when the filesystem is write-able and stable, or is that technically improbable?

The migration will be: Plug in a new drive, put it under ZFS control (add it to a new or existing zpool) and copy your data to it.

ZFS is fundamentally different than HFS. There is no plausible way to convert HFS to ZFS in place.

/dale

flopticalcube
Oct 4, 2007, 09:26 PM
ZFS vs WinFS who will win?

ZFS since WinFS is still vapourware.

DMann
Oct 4, 2007, 09:26 PM
ZFS will make time machine faster and more usable by allowing snapshots at the filesystem level. You'll be able to plugin an external drive and zam, a few ZFS commands later and a full clone of your mac is made on the external drive. All of the snapshots in between backups can be time machined to.

Without a doubt, all while utilizing minimal drive space.

Elektronkind
Oct 4, 2007, 09:30 PM
ZFS sounds amazing to me in terms of data reliability and integrity. It'll be a beautiful addition to my Desktop where I keep all my media and data and need 100% redundancy of it.

However, I have a MacBook right now and can't see how it would help me out with only one drive available.

You can still use ZFS with only one drive. You can even use ZFS on just a particular partition of the drive.

/dale

Analog Kid
Oct 4, 2007, 09:30 PM
I'm not gonna break my NDA but I will say it's fast as hell..
Well, since you can't talk about Leopard or ZFS on Leopard, can you tell us how fast hell is?

DMann
Oct 4, 2007, 09:35 PM
ZFS vs WinFS who will win?

It seems WinFS re-encodes files with metadata in a less efficient way (at least that's what I've been told) than ZFS. This might cause more latency, more hard drive space to be utilized, or both. -- and who knows when and if WinFS will ever see the light of day.

kcmac
Oct 4, 2007, 09:35 PM
Cromulent. Why the hate on the Rocketman? Speaking only for myself, I have found Rocketman to offer good information around here for quite awhile.

It seems where ZFS will affect the average user, like myself will be in the easy addition of extra hard drive space when we start to build up our war chests of videos and other media. Seems like it will eliminate a lot of decision making. We suddenly don't have to think if we should get the 320 gig, or the 160 or the 500. Running out of space...easily add to the pool and without 20 gazillion icons of hard drives on our desktops.

That is correct, right?

Elektronkind
Oct 4, 2007, 09:36 PM
I'll be more excited about ZFS when it is been tried
and tested for awhile under Solaris. Make sure it is rock
solid in the enterprise market first. I'd also be interested if and when any of the Linux distributions pick this up?

I currently have about 40TB of disk under ZFS control at work (Solaris 10 servers). It's stable.

ZFS cannot be integrated directly into the Linux kernel because Linux's GPL (license) does not permit code not released under the GPL from cohabitating with it. ZFS is released under the CDDL license. There is an implementation of ZFS available for Linux under the FUSE (user-space filesystem framework) project, but it's still in development, not stable, and won't live up to its full potential since it'll have to live outside the kernel context.

/dale

Stridder44
Oct 4, 2007, 09:40 PM
10.5.0 is for all practical purposes a public beta. 10.5.1 will be worth installing for bleeding edge users. 10.5.2 will probably be installed on shipping hardware (if 10.5.0 or 10.5.1 is, that would be "bad"), and will still require several software updates to use reasonably.

If you are a "trailing edge" user, please do yourself a favor and wait for 10.5.3.

Rocketman

To answer Cromulant I am not subject to NDA. Therefore I am free to talk at will.



Hell yeah. Anyone who installs a fresh OS like that is just begging to be a test mule. 10.5.2 at least. Nothing earlier.

Elektronkind
Oct 4, 2007, 09:42 PM
I was under the impression that ZFS under Solaris was not bootable because it was usually on a computer with BIOS instead of EFI (a larger firmware storage). Since Apple uses EFI, it might be possible to do things not normally possible with the old BIOS firmware.

When ZFS is given control of an entire hard drive (and not just a portion/partition of one) it writes a EFI label (GUID parition table) to the disk. These are understood by EFI firmware.

BIOS dependson ye olde MBR (master boot record) for partitioning information, a relic that reaches back to the earliest PCs.

/dale

DMann
Oct 4, 2007, 09:49 PM
Does ZFS increase the speed of your computer as well?

Yes, in terms of accessing files, Spotlight, (nanosecond response) Time Machine responsiveness, and any other file search intensive tasks.

Krevnik
Oct 4, 2007, 09:50 PM
It seems WinFS re-encodes files with metadata in a less efficient way (at least that's what I've been told) than ZFS. This might cause more latency, more hard drive space to be utilized, or both. -- and who knows when and if WinFS will ever see the light of day.

WinFS is a shell around an NTFS filesystem with a SQL DB that contains a bunch of metadata on files. What it was supposed to do is replace the traditional FS with a DB-focused, relationship-oriented, model of file access. The concept of a folder hierarchy was supposed to be nearly non-existent at the user level... but it was really far too ambitious to be backwards compatible, revolutionary, and on time.

ZFS and WinFS really try to solve two different parts of the problems. I would say something like ZFS could be the foundation of something that resembles WinFS in the future, as it solves a bunch of problems that would be really, really helpful to have solved before trying to throw away the traditional file hierarchy.

Elektronkind
Oct 4, 2007, 09:51 PM
Yes, in terms of accessing files, Spotlight, (nanosecond response) Time Machine responsiveness, and any other file search intensive tasks.

Where in the world did you pull "nanosecond response" from?

/dale

DMann
Oct 4, 2007, 09:53 PM
Hell yeah. Anyone who installs a fresh OS like that is just begging to be a test mule. 10.5.2 at least. Nothing earlier.

What really creates obstacles is the latency of developers in recoding and optimizing their apps for the new OS.

DMann
Oct 4, 2007, 09:54 PM
Where in the world did you pull "nanosecond response" from?

/dale

Sorry, I meant immediate.... it will be fast.

DMann
Oct 4, 2007, 10:10 PM
WinFS is a shell around an NTFS filesystem with a SQL DB that contains a bunch of metadata on files. What it was supposed to do is replace the traditional FS with a DB-focused, relationship-oriented, model of file access. The concept of a folder hierarchy was supposed to be nearly non-existent at the user level... but it was really far too ambitious to be backwards compatible, revolutionary, and on time.

ZFS and WinFS really try to solve two different parts of the problems. I would say something like ZFS could be the foundation of something that resembles WinFS in the future, as it solves a bunch of problems that would be really, really helpful to have solved before trying to throw away the traditional file hierarchy.

Thank you for the clarification.

cohibadad
Oct 4, 2007, 10:15 PM
I don't know why some people are worried about installing 10.5.0. Leopard is beautiful to use and stable on PPC and Intel. Perhaps there are some specific applications they're unsure will work correctly? dunno but I have no troubles and use it daily. It has brought new life to my Dual G4 :) and is a dream on a core 2 duo. Frankly I continue to have more frustrations from Vista than I have had from any Leopard seed. I have used Leopard exclusively since WWDC and I'm still excited for official release as I've been waiting to buy some imacs and want Leopard pre-installed. All of this talk about waiting for 10.5.x before installing is nonsense IMHO.

Krevnik
Oct 4, 2007, 10:22 PM
I don't know why some people are worried about installing 10.5.0. Leopard is beautiful to use and stable on PPC and Intel. Perhaps there are some specific applications they're unsure will work correctly? dunno but I have no troubles and use it daily. It has brought new life to my Dual G4 :) and is a dream on a core 2 duo. Frankly I continue to have more frustrations from Vista than I have had from any Leopard seed. I have used Leopard exclusively since WWDC and I'm still excited for official release as I've been waiting to buy some imacs and want Leopard pre-installed. All of this talk about waiting for 10.5.x before installing is nonsense IMHO.

There are still some really ugly hangs on a few configurations (especially the configurations Apple is currently shipping).

It isn't horrible, but having the UI hang and force me to sleep the machine to get control back is annoying.

DMann
Oct 4, 2007, 10:25 PM
I don't know why some people are worried about installing 10.5.0. Leopard is beautiful to use and stable on PPC and Intel. Perhaps there are some specific applications they're unsure will work correctly? dunno but I have no troubles and use it daily. It has brought new life to my Dual G4 :) and is a dream on a core 2 duo. Frankly I continue to have more frustrations from Vista than I have had from any Leopard seed. I have used Leopard exclusively since WWDC and I'm still excited for official release as I've been waiting to buy some imacs and want Leopard pre-installed. All of this talk about waiting for 10.5.x before installing is nonsense IMHO.

Agreed, with the exception of a few screen savers, most everything runs smoothly on 9A559. Overall, much snappier and responsive than Tiger is now.

aliquis-
Oct 5, 2007, 01:05 AM
I'm not gonna break my NDA but I will say it's fast as hell..Yeah because it's so hard to try ZFS for oneself ...

May be much faster than HFS+ in some cases I guess, I haven't mad my mac for more than 4 or 5 weeks and I definitly haven't tested the filesystem, also I wouldn't be able to compare it to my regular experience due to the 2.5" drive anyway.

Average iMac user here. What does ZFS do that I might notice -- will ZFS matter to me? Serious question.Not much, you will notice if data on your drive gets corrupted and you can have timemachinelike feature with only one drive. ZFS makes more sense when you have lots of drives, and eventually need even more ones.

OK, I'll bite.

Just what is it that we will see in OS 10.5 as it relates to ZFS? If this is what is stated, than what do we get?

"In the release notes, Apple confirms that the original release of Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) will only offer Read-Only ZFS. As a result, no ZFS pools or filesystems can be modified or created under 10.5.0. This developer's preview enables full read/write capability, including the creation/destruction of ZFS pools and filesystems."Functionality for reading it? Rather useless if you haven't used Solaris with ZFS earlier and want to move over your data but probably easier to implement something which just tries to understand the data without changing and therefor eventually breaking it first. Just wait until you get it all.

Now if only Blizzard and Adobe could make sure their applications worked on case-sensetive volumes.

I'm positive that ZFS has, and always will be an integral part of time-machine. The reason it was "pulled" was because the thunder was stolen from Job's by the Sun exec. Always been there... nothing to see here.Pulled as in not mentioned as the top secret feature maybe.
Pulled as in "screw this now we won't have it" as some people speculated as some sort of weird revenge against Sun for a thing which is free and open? Not likely :D, and obviously not true either considering this news item.

Stephen123
Oct 5, 2007, 01:07 AM
I would think the main advantage for average users would be things they DON'T notice. The lack of disk thrashing, the lack of disk failure, the lack of lost data, and the lack of waiting are all things people will tend to NOT notice. They'll just experience a somewhat better computer.

Marx55
Oct 5, 2007, 01:37 AM
Awesome Self Healing with ZFS. Check out the video:

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/selfheal/

No need for Disk Utility First Aid or DiskWarrior any more?

DMann
Oct 5, 2007, 01:39 AM
So the Sun guy was telling the truth after all.

And havoc was wreathed for saying so.......

skiwhitman
Oct 5, 2007, 01:42 AM
regarding the wikpedia description - does this actually virtually add storage? It says that it would take an incredible amount of time to run out of storage, so does that mean that with my 160gb imac and 250gb external drive that I won't have to add anymore storage???

kwong2006
Oct 5, 2007, 01:43 AM
Please, I beg of you Apple, make ZFS default bootable when Leopard releases! You have been working at this for too long to throw it away!

Krevnik
Oct 5, 2007, 01:48 AM
regarding the wikpedia description - does this actually virtually add storage? It says that it would take an incredible amount of time to run out of storage, so does that mean that with my 160gb imac and 250gb external drive that I won't have to add anymore storage???

It doesn't magically add storage you don't have... but what it means is that you could keep adding drives into a single large partition/volume and never run into a size limit.

Catfish_Man
Oct 5, 2007, 01:49 AM
Please, I beg of you Apple, make ZFS default bootable when Leopard releases! You have been working at this for too long to throw it away!

...they've already said it's not even going to be writable in 10.5.0. It doesn't surprise me at all, considering how important it is to be sure that filesystems are heavily tested.

<something>

Um... not even close. It takes an incredible amount of time before the number of files gets too high for the filesystem to count properly (essentially). You'll run out of storage millions of years before then.

skiwhitman
Oct 5, 2007, 02:22 AM
It doesn't magically add storage you don't have... but what it means is that you could keep adding drives into a single large partition/volume and never run into a size limit.

Ahh, THAT makes more sense
Thanks:)

zaxxon72
Oct 5, 2007, 02:31 AM
regarding the wikpedia description - does this actually virtually add storage? It says that it would take an incredible amount of time to run out of storage, so does that mean that with my 160gb imac and 250gb external drive that I won't have to add anymore storage???

Yes, you know, a certain someone WAS right when he said "640k certainly are enough for computers", the problem some 25 years ago was that ZFS wasn't ready yet.

So we can all dig you our original IBM PCs and reformat our 10Meg MFM disks with ZFS and we'll never have to worry about storage anymore...

:o

Mr.damien
Oct 5, 2007, 02:47 AM
Does ZFS increase the speed of your computer as well?
We could say that. In fact, it will not speed up your computer BUT it will prevent it to be slower because of disc access.

With this file systems, heavy write on the disks will not make the OS hang anymore even if the cache of the hard drive is full.

The only big thing that is missing today in ZFS is that you cannot remove a disk from a zpool

viltsu
Oct 5, 2007, 02:53 AM
What if the ZFS is one of the big "secrets" of upcoming Leopard? Could it be possible to see ZFS in the Leopard when it´ll be released?


P.S. My first post, don´t judge the n00b :)

psychofreak
Oct 5, 2007, 02:56 AM
What if the ZFS is one of the big "secrets" of upcoming Leopard? Could it be possible to see ZFS in the Leopard when it´ll be released?
Not while they just released a beta of a read-only ZFS with a warning that this won't happen only a short time before Leopard goes GM...

kamiboy
Oct 5, 2007, 03:04 AM
For a future version of OSX, and a future version of a Mac File System I expect the hanging problem to be solved. There is nothing worse than knowing that you have such a fast system with so much potential and power behind it being run by such a sophisticated OS and then you run a program that makes heavy use of the disc and everything just freezes and becomes unresponsive for minutes at a time.

A multi tasking OS should never, ever, ever freeze. Ever! So why is it that OSX does it so often, and so badly when disk read/write operations are involved.

poundsmack
Oct 5, 2007, 03:54 AM
this would mostly benefit the server release. also ZFS is fast as hell. like OMG fast. it will most definently not become the defautl botable file system in 10.5 but 10.6 its very likely. if apple wants to stay in the server business they need this. apple after all if primarily a hardware comany. imagine dual booting solaris and OSX on an Xserver. mmmmmm

bentoms
Oct 5, 2007, 06:15 AM
Hi guys,

From what I've read it seems that one advantage would be that if say you built a 200GB Mirrored RAID set & wished to add more disk space to it you could (as long as you have the space to house the drive) just resize the pool to include the drive instead of rebuilding the RAID.

Is that right?

stomer
Oct 5, 2007, 06:48 AM
Resource forks. What happens to them with ZFS? Is it possible to remove support for resource forks from the Mac OS without breaking everything?

overcast
Oct 5, 2007, 07:16 AM
Hi guys,

From what I've read it seems that one advantage would be that if say you built a 200GB Mirrored RAID set & wished to add more disk space to it you could (as long as you have the space to house the drive) just resize the pool to include the drive instead of rebuilding the RAID.

Is that right?
No. You can't add an additional drive to an existing ZFS filesystem. You can additional ZFS filesystems to the pool however. Say you have an existing pool mypool that currently contains a mirror of D1 and D2. You can add D3 and D4 as and ADDITIONAL mirror to that pool. So now mypool contains D1/D2 and D3/D4. As far as storage is concerned, you will see it as one filesystem.

I deal with ZFS on a daily basis in both the office and in personal use on large arrays of drives. Honestly, the only people that are going to be interested in this are the MacOS server people and possibly those running external drive array configurations. The fact that they are JUST implementing ZFS read ONLY, leads me to believe Time Machine has nothing to do with it, as it's definitely going to need to read and write to it.

While I'm not going to get into it, as you can go and read the docs from opensolaris. ZFS is concerned with data integrity and not speed, and it shows.

overcast
Oct 5, 2007, 07:23 AM
Hi guys,

From what I've read it seems that one advantage would be that if say you built a 200GB Mirrored RAID set & wished to add more disk space to it you could (as long as you have the space to house the drive) just resize the pool to include the drive instead of rebuilding the RAID.

Is that right?
No. You can't add an additional drive to an existing mirrored ZFS filesystem. You can additional ZFS filesystems to the pool however. You can add an additional drive to a mirror,but it will just become a 3way mirror. RAIDZ will not work that way though. Say you have an existing pool mypool that currently contains a mirror of D1 and D2. You can add D3 and D4 as and ADDITIONAL mirror to that pool. So now mypool contains D1/D2 and D3/D4. Or with RAIDZ you have D1/D2/D3, you can add D4/D5/D6 to the pool. As far as storage is concerned, you will see it as one filesystem.

I deal with ZFS on a daily basis in both the office and in personal use on large arrays of drives. Honestly, the only people that are going to be interested in this are the MacOS server people and possibly those running external drive array configurations. The fact that they are JUST implementing ZFS read ONLY, leads me to believe Time Machine has nothing to do with it, as it's definitely going to need to read and write to it.

While I'm not going to get into it, as you can go and read the docs from opensolaris. ZFS is concerned with data integrity and not speed, and it shows.

EDIT: Of course you could *probably* add additional storage to a non-redudant striped array (RAID0), like you can in standard Solaris filesystems. But I've never done it as it's pointless in any production environment to run without redundancy.

Macinposh
Oct 5, 2007, 07:33 AM
So folks, is people willing to take stabs why apple has implemented ZFS read only?

Is there any wild guesses what they have in mind? Might it be mainly for server side use where they would test some stuff, or do they have some kind of masterplan evolving?

Now,hit it.

Soverc
Oct 5, 2007, 07:42 AM
http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html

The above would be a very good reason for Apple to wait and see what happens before using ZFS.

I don't think ZFS will be in a released version of 10.5 for a few years.

thejadedmonkey
Oct 5, 2007, 07:46 AM
ZFS vs WinFS who will win?
Microsoft will implement ZFS into Windows Vienna, followed by a Linux kernel in Vienna's successor :p

(Actually, I might consider switching back to Windows if they could get a *nix like stability and memory management, with all of the Windows API's)
So folks, is people willing to take stabs why apple has implemented ZFS read only?

Is there any wild guesses what they have in mind? Might it be mainly for server side use where they would test some stuff, or do they have some kind of masterplan evolving?

Now,hit it.

Implementing a file system is hard work. With a normal program, if it errors, it attempts to recover from the error, and if it can't, it crashes. With a file system, if it errors, it corrupts data. If it doesn't crash, it continues to corrupt data, and you lose a lot of files. If you don't have a good backup, you could lose years of work in the blink of an eye because ZFS was rushed.

Give it time, I'm sure Apple will add it in when they feel it's 100% ready for home usage.

twoodcc
Oct 5, 2007, 07:49 AM
http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html

The above would be a very good reason for Apple to wait and see what happens before using ZFS.

I don't think ZFS will be in a released version of 10.5 for a few years.

oh great. i'm guessing this probably has something to do with it...or if not, it probably will in the future

Cromulent
Oct 5, 2007, 07:55 AM
Cromulent. Why the hate on the Rocketman? Speaking only for myself, I have found Rocketman to offer good information around here for quite awhile.

It is not hate. It is a dislike for stating conjecture as fact.

It seems where ZFS will affect the average user, like myself will be in the easy addition of extra hard drive space when we start to build up our war chests of videos and other media. Seems like it will eliminate a lot of decision making. We suddenly don't have to think if we should get the 320 gig, or the 160 or the 500. Running out of space...easily add to the pool and without 20 gazillion icons of hard drives on our desktops.

That is correct, right?

Pretty much. Although obviously you will still need to take into account total pool size so hard drive capacity will still be a decision that needs to be made. Plus you may want more than one pool and I would assume that each pool would be represented by a hard drive icon as it is now.

nickelcokes
Oct 5, 2007, 08:23 AM
Cromulent. Why the hate on the Rocketman? Speaking only for myself, I have found Rocketman to offer good information around here for quite awhile.

It seems where ZFS will affect the average user, like myself will be in the easy addition of extra hard drive space when we start to build up our war chests of videos and other media. Seems like it will eliminate a lot of decision making. We suddenly don't have to think if we should get the 320 gig, or the 160 or the 500. Running out of space...easily add to the pool and without 20 gazillion icons of hard drives on our desktops.

That is correct, right?

Here is another scenario for ZFS that will benefit the average user. Creation of filesystems is trivial in ZFS, with low overhead and the ability to share one storage pool amongst many filesystems. The classic example is to create a new filesystem for every user, but that doesn't help much on a single-user Mac.

But consider this: the average Mac might contain five main kinds of data: movies, pictures, music, documents and preferences. Each one of these types has different properties. Movies, pictures and music don't compress well (they are already compressed), but documents and preferences may compress well. ZFS supports on the fly compression. Wouldn't it be good to use automatic compression on the documents and preferences, but avoid wasting the effort on the other types? Create a different filesystem for each type, and you can enable or disable compression wherever it is appropriate.

But there is more. Music files tend not to change... I'd venture the main changes to the music file system are file creations. This makes snapshots unnecessary. Also, while preferences do change, they tend to change in trivial ways, so why bother taking snapshots of your preferences? If you want to preserve the states of files, you can take a snapshot at any time. With separate filesystems for each data type, you can snapshot only those things that change, only when you want to preserve them. There might not ben that much overhead even if you included your preferences and music in every snapshot on a single filesystem, because the files are either small or stagnant. However, splitting up your filesystems keeps organization of these snapshots easier.

There are other benefits, like per-filesystem quotas. Maybe you are a developer, and you are working on a program that generates a lot of output. You don't want this output filling the whole disk. Set a quota on the filesystem that will store the output, to avoid this problem.

In my case, I used to have three partitions on my Mac: one main partition, for the system; one partition for the /Users hierarchy, and one partition for /opt, which is used by the MacPorts system. This kept everything separate and well-organized, and allowed me to use case-sensitivity on my /Users partition without doing the same with the system files. This was nice, but it had a problem: I had to choose fixed sizes for each filesystem. Thus, while I had 45 GB of 55 GB free in my /Users partition, and 7 GB of 10 GB free in the /opt partition, I was down to the last few GB in the system partition, which was giving me headaches. I had to reformat and reinstall, combining /opt and the system partition, while shrinking my home directory a bit, to give more space to the system partition. ZFS avoids this issue, allowing me to create arbitrary filesystems for organizational peace of mind, without actually forcing me to subdivide the available space.

glennyboiwpg
Oct 5, 2007, 08:33 AM
I don't even want to try to get my brain around 10.6. 2009 at the earliest, right?

Well thats what they would tell us... but remember to factor in the iphone 2.0 delay... So i'd say october 2010.

kwong2006
Oct 5, 2007, 09:08 AM
...they've already said it's not even going to be writable in 10.5.0. It doesn't surprise me at all, considering how important it is to be sure that filesystems are heavily tested.

I know, but at least let me dream a little, can you?

kwong2006
Oct 5, 2007, 09:09 AM
Well thats what they would tell us... but remember to factor in the iphone 2.0 delay... So i'd say october 2010.

I am sick and tired of your delay prophecies. Do you have anything else to contribute to this forum? If you are here to vent about product delays, go somewhere else.

Rocketman
Oct 5, 2007, 09:59 AM
regarding the wikpedia description - does this actually virtually add storage? It says that it would take an incredible amount of time to run out of storage, so does that mean that with my 160gb imac and 250gb external drive that I won't have to add anymore storage???

The old sectoring meme is gone, so all the actual space on the drive is used under ZFS, so yes the typical user will experience "more space" because more files will fit on it.

This scheme also improves access speeds and lowers save errors. ZFS is a Sun invention and Jobs identified it early as "insanely great", and made a deal with Sun. Why Apple has not just purchased Sun at some point I will never know.

Microsoft will of course try to copy it and who knows how many of the lemmings will use it.

But Time Machine (the one demoed was a "dummy") is basicly a GUI on ZFS. With some of Apples other services layered on ZFS, such as scripting, searching, multi-homing, etc, this thing will really be leveraged to interesting applications and adoption via 10.5 will assure a large immediate user base.

All your base are belong to us.

Rocketman

I felt there was not hate but healthy skepticism by Cromulent.

overcast
Oct 5, 2007, 10:22 AM
The old sectoring meme is gone, so all the actual space on the drive is used under ZFS, so yes the typical user will experience "more space" because more files will fit on it.

This scheme also improves access speeds and lowers save errors. ZFS is a Sun invention and Jobs identified it early as "insanely great", and made a deal with Sun. Why Apple has not just purchased Sun at some point I will never know.

Microsoft will of course try to copy it and who knows how many of the lemmings will use it.

But Time Machine (the one demoed was a "dummy") is basicly a GUI on ZFS. With some of Apples other services layered on ZFS, such as scripting, searching, multi-homing, etc, this thing will really be leveraged to interesting applications and adoption via 10.5 will assure a large immediate user base.

All your base are belong to us.

Rocketman

I felt there was not hate but healthy skepticism by Cromulent.
How exactly can Time Machine be a GUI of ZFS. For ZFS to be used in this, it would HAVE to be the filesystem for the entire system. Being as that it is a brand new port to Mac AND it's only going to be Read Only. It isn't possible. ZFS isn't layered on top of HFS+

ART5000
Oct 5, 2007, 10:40 AM
How exactly can Time Machine be a GUI of ZFS. For ZFS to be used in this, it would HAVE to be the filesystem for the entire system. Being as that it is a brand new port to Mac AND it's only going to be Read Only. It isn't possible. ZFS isn't layered on top of HFS+

Don't you read. apple states

"In the release notes, Apple confirms that the original release of Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) will only offer Read-Only ZFS. As a result, no ZFS pools or filesystems can be modified or created under 10.5.0. This developer's preview enables full read/write capability, including the creation/destruction of ZFS pools and filesystems."

it's read and write. we will expect read write within a month from release

overcast
Oct 5, 2007, 10:46 AM
Don't you read. apple states

"In the release notes, Apple confirms that the original release of Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) will only offer Read-Only ZFS. As a result, no ZFS pools or filesystems can be modified or created under 10.5.0. This developer's preview enables full read/write capability, including the creation/destruction of ZFS pools and filesystems."

it's read and write. we will expect read write within a month from release
I did read it. So we can expect it within a month from release. So what? That means we are unable to use Time Machine until ZFS gets write functionality? What about all of the demos for time machine earlier in the year? I guess they actually used a time machine, went into the future, got ZFS read/write working AND made MacOS run completey off of it for the conference. I'm still sticking with it's not being used for it, or anytime in the near future. The filesystem is still under constant changes in the opensolaris developer release, there is no way Apple is using this as a primary filesystem until MUCH further down the road. I'd love to hear about how much experience you have with ZFS, to make any type of remarks on it. So calm yourself with the big bold text, smartass.

RRK
Oct 5, 2007, 11:14 AM
I did read it. So we can expect it within a month from release. So what? That means we are unable to use Time Machine until ZFS gets write functionality? What about all of the demos for time machine earlier in the year? I guess they actually used a time machine, went into the future, got ZFS read/write working AND made MacOS run completey off of it for the conference. I'm still sticking with it's not being used for it, or anytime in the near future. The filesystem is still under constant changes in the opensolaris developer release, there is no way Apple is using this as a primary filesystem until MUCH further down the road. I'd love to hear about how much experience you have with ZFS, to make any type of remarks on it. So calm yourself with the big bold text, smartass.

I remember an article (like a year ago) where they were speculating that Apple was using ZFS for Time Machine and they asked Apple directly. Apple said that all of the features of Time Machine are accomplished with some add on's to HFS+. People have been running Time Machine with no ZFS until this update so it will be running (on HFS+) on release day for sure.

Random Ping
Oct 5, 2007, 11:21 AM
You guys do know what GM means right?

General Motors :D

overcast
Oct 5, 2007, 11:32 AM
I remember an article (like a year ago) where they were speculating that Apple was using ZFS for Time Machine and they asked Apple directly. Apple said that all of the features of Time Machine are accomplished with some add on's to HFS+. People have been running Time Machine with no ZFS until this update so it will be running (on HFS+) on release day for sure.
Which just further proves my point ;)

kildjean
Oct 5, 2007, 11:36 AM
Hell yeah. Anyone who installs a fresh OS like that is just begging to be a test mule. 10.5.2 at least. Nothing earlier.

Now now... no need to be name calling here...

There are people like me, for example who like to ride technology by grabbing it by the horns. We are the Daredevil type, technological life is not the same unless you are riding the thunder... So there is no need to call us beasts of burden or Asses. I at least dont have to resort to 3rd party Tech Support to go around my issues... And I do it, because I can and want to, ok pumpkin?

So dont call us names to cover your insecurities.

I have been running 9a559 as my main OS in my productivity Mac, with no major complications that could affects anyone's working environment. I have a strong belief that 9a559 is the Release Candidate and Apple is being Mum about it.

What Rocketman says about 10.5.0, 10.5.1 being the public betas of the OS is not meant as the OS is a PoS. This is normal for all software. Even software that has undergone public beta testing, has a rough time on their 1.0 versions.

I dont care about that sort of thing... I will get Leopard 10.5.0 when it comes out, and will get the rest of the versions as well, i guess its just my style...

Peace all!

Kil

kildjean
Oct 5, 2007, 11:42 AM
I recently aquired one of these Drobo units (for those who don't know walk yourselves to http://www.drobo.com). I have been using Drobo as my NAS (well in conjunction with my Airport Extreme Gygabit Router), for my house. I use Macs, my GF uses Vista... (its her work...), but we all use drobo to access our stuff. Our Drobo is hooked to two 500Gb SATA Drives... I am going to buy a 3rd 500G drive in Xmas, and a last one in or after February, to have a full 2Tb of storage.

Drobo works almost as ZFS... but i can only imagine how my Drobo will work with ZFS as its filesystem... its going to be sweet.

Kil

overcast
Oct 5, 2007, 11:45 AM
I recently aquired one of these Drobo units (for those who don't know walk yourselves to http://www.drobo.com). I have been using Drobo as my NAS (well in conjunction with my Airport Extreme Gygabit Router), for my house. I use Macs, my GF uses Vista... (its her work...), but we all use drobo to access our stuff. Our Drobo is hooked to two 500Gb SATA Drives... I am going to buy a 3rd 500G drive in Xmas, and a last one in or after February, to have a full 2Tb of storage.

Drobo works almost as ZFS... but i can only imagine how my Drobo will work with ZFS as its filesystem... its going to be sweet.

Kil
Can you access those disk independently from the unit? Or can you only look at just the RAID volume? Because it becomes a case of the ZFS error stuff on top of the RAID error stuff. While it can be done, it's generally not advised from what I've read on the opensolaris communities.

Up to read 22MB/s write 20MB/s and USB 2.0 :( Eww.

milo
Oct 5, 2007, 12:06 PM
A company that faces opposition from an OS with a LOT of glass and shiny stuff that is quickly overtaking its main product...

Just to be clear, you're talking about Vista, right? And you're saying that vista is quickly overtaking OSX?

Is that a joke?

10.5.0 is for all practical purposes a public beta. 10.5.1 will be worth installing for bleeding edge users. 10.5.2 will probably be installed on shipping hardware (if 10.5.0 or 10.5.1 is, that would be "bad"), and will still require several software updates to use reasonably.


You don't think they will install .0 or .1 on hardware? That would mean that new machines wouldn't get the OS for weeks or months, which is pretty much unimaginable. Has apple EVER released a version of OSX where they've skipped over installing the .0 release on hardware (much less .1 as well)?

psychofreak
Oct 5, 2007, 12:08 PM
Just to be clear, you're talking about Vista, right? And you're saying that vista is quickly overtaking OSX?

Is that a joke?
It won't be long until Vista's market share is higher than OSX's...

Krevnik
Oct 5, 2007, 01:18 PM
It won't be long until Vista's market share is higher than OSX's...

Vista can bomb and still be higher than OS X's market share (and Vista did overtake OS X a few months ago).

psychofreak
Oct 5, 2007, 01:20 PM
Vista can bomb and still be higher than OS X's market share (and Vista did overtake OS X a few months ago).

I never said Vista deserved it, I just said that OSX was competing with Vista and its glass effects etc...

Krevnik
Oct 5, 2007, 01:26 PM
I never said Vista deserved it, I just said that OSX was competing with Vista and its glass effects etc...

And I am simply saying that Vista would overtake OS X in marketshare, no matter how well it is doing. Unfortunately, comparing marketshare doesn't make the Mac look good in any light... Linux outranks us in most circles.

akac
Oct 5, 2007, 01:51 PM
For a future version of OSX, and a future version of a Mac File System I expect the hanging problem to be solved. There is nothing worse than knowing that you have such a fast system with so much potential and power behind it being run by such a sophisticated OS and then you run a program that makes heavy use of the disc and everything just freezes and becomes unresponsive for minutes at a time.

A multi tasking OS should never, ever, ever freeze. Ever! So why is it that OSX does it so often, and so badly when disk read/write operations are involved.

It happens on Windows too. As far as I can tell, its because IDE interfaces still require the CPU to handle the disk transfer. On SCSI devices this is a non-issue.

overcast
Oct 5, 2007, 02:15 PM
As far as I can tell, its because IDE interfaces still require the CPU to handle the disk transfer. On SCSI devices this is a non-issue.
LOL WHAT!?!

milo
Oct 5, 2007, 02:43 PM
It won't be long until Vista's market share is higher than OSX's...

Yeah, but that's not "rising", that's just because windows already has like 90% market share and Vista is mostly replacing existing XP installs. It's silly to call any version of windows "rising" when they're losing marketshare overall (osx and other OS's are growing faster than windows).

"Glass effects" are irrelevant to the situation, 99% of vista sales are simply sales that would have gone to XP if they hadn't released vista, and if anything those "glass effects" and other pointless things may hurt them more than they help.

Rocketman
Oct 5, 2007, 02:49 PM
How exactly can Time Machine be a GUI of ZFS. For ZFS to be used in this, it would HAVE to be the filesystem for the entire system. Being as that it is a brand new port to Mac AND it's only going to be Read Only. It isn't possible. ZFS isn't layered on top of HFS+

The application "Time Machine" has a GUI. It recognizes HFS+ and ZFS discs. The TM application emulates some of the features of ZFS for HFS+ discs where ZFS is not available, thus implementing the application Time machine's designated features.

ZFS itself can use the TM app GUI but also can be controlled by command line or other tools.

What I find interesting is the Apple value added implementation of ZFS, makes its features accesable to and subject to Apple developed "services" within OSX.

Rocketman

mauldus
Oct 5, 2007, 03:19 PM
Time Machine is a GUI for a revisioning backup system (much like subversion). It doesn't rely on specific features of ZFS so TM is not dependent on ZFS.

overcast
Oct 5, 2007, 03:25 PM
Time Machine is a GUI for a revisioning backup system (much like subversion). It doesn't rely on specific features of ZFS so TM is not dependent on ZFS.
Ding ding ding!

OldCorpse
Oct 5, 2007, 03:55 PM
I recently aquired one of these Drobo units (for those who don't know walk yourselves to http://www.drobo.com). I have been using Drobo as my NAS (well in conjunction with my Airport Extreme Gygabit Router), for my house. I use Macs, my GF uses Vista... (its her work...), but we all use drobo to access our stuff. Our Drobo is hooked to two 500Gb SATA Drives... I am going to buy a 3rd 500G drive in Xmas, and a last one in or after February, to have a full 2Tb of storage.

Drobo works almost as ZFS... but i can only imagine how my Drobo will work with ZFS as its filesystem... its going to be sweet.

Kil

I checked it out. No thanks :(... USB only????? And slower than sh|t in a freezer. Next!!!

CWallace
Oct 5, 2007, 06:04 PM
I checked (Drobo) out. No thanks... :( USB only????? And slower than sh|t in a freezer. Next!!!

You're not going to want to use externally-attached storage as primary storage, anyway, so even USB 2.0 speeds should be decent enough to stream movies, music and pictures. And within two years USB 3.0 should be making inroads and that will certainly be fast enough.

An X-Serve Media Center with ZFS will be a wonderful thing, I imagine. Tens of TB of storage all treated as a single drive.

AtariAge
Oct 5, 2007, 07:44 PM
You're not going to want to use externally-attached storage as primary storage, anyway, so even USB 2.0 speeds should be decent enough to stream movies, music and pictures.
USB 2.0 is "decent enough" to stream media, but slow as molasses when you want to do large copy operations (say, you want to back up those media files or want to copy a batch somewhere else). I'll gladly pay extra for a FW400 of (even better!) FW800 interface on a file storage device or system!!

..Al

CWallace
Oct 5, 2007, 08:07 PM
USB 2.0 is "decent enough" to stream media, but slow as molasses when you want to do large copy operations (say, you want to back up those media files or want to copy a batch somewhere else). I'll gladly pay extra for a FW400 of (even better!) FW800 interface on a file storage device or system!!

..Al

Very true, which is why I love the old "xcopy" command in Windows and like the option on Carbon Copy Cloner to only copy the files that have changed. So your first copy takes forever, but after that, it's much faster.

overcast
Oct 5, 2007, 10:21 PM
You're not going to want to use externally-attached storage as primary storage, anyway, so even USB 2.0 speeds should be decent enough to stream movies, music and pictures. And within two years USB 3.0 should be making inroads and that will certainly be fast enough.

An X-Serve Media Center with ZFS will be a wonderful thing, I imagine. Tens of TB of storage all treated as a single drive.
Why? SAN networks are used as primary storage all the time. And you wouldn't use tens of terabytes of storage as a "single drive". You'd have many file systems under that.

MagnusVonMagnum
Oct 7, 2007, 12:11 AM
I agree...the default should be a single pool that grows when you add new hard drives. And advanced options within Disk Utility should allow people to create new pools to act as a partition. Of course, only Mac OS X 10.5 (or 10.6) and later would be able to use ZFS so perhaps some users would prefer having at least one drive with HFS+ for earlier versions of OS X or FAT32 or NTFS.

I disagree about it being the default for a very simple reason. Other than the MacPro, no Mac out there in the current lineup can support more than 1 internal hard drive. That means the other Macs would need external drives. The problem with external drives is they're messy (take up desk space) and not terribly convenient to transport (i.e. how many laptop owners want to carry around an external drive in a separate case to take with them everywhere and use literally ALL THE TIME?)

So what would happen to a system that automatically 'grows' the pool of hard drive space when you plug in an external drive the first time you DO NOT take that hard drive with you when you go somewhere (i.e. laptop)? I think you will find your files are spread out across two drives and suddenly your system doesn't work anymore without the extra drive!

No, it's best that it does NOT default to merge pools without a user's permission so Apple doesn't get endless hate mail from angry laptop users who suddenly find themselves hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from their 2nd hard drive on a trip and have huge amounts of their data missing on their laptops because they had no idea their 2nd hard drive was made REQUIRED by a bad choice for default operation.

CWallace
Oct 7, 2007, 08:22 AM
Why? SAN networks are used as primary storage all the time. And you wouldn't use tens of terabytes of storage as a "single drive". You'd have many file systems under that.

Not if you wanted to use it as a Media Server data warehouse. At least not as I envision one, as I'd rather have all my media on a single volume that I could just keep adding drives to as I ran out of space.

cluster2600
Oct 7, 2007, 03:54 PM
hello all,

I downloaded the beta package and i am testing:

sh-3.2# zpool upgrade -v
This system is currently running ZFS version 6.

The following versions are supported:

VER DESCRIPTION
--- --------------------------------------------------------
1 Initial ZFS version
2 Ditto blocks (replicated metadata)
3 Hot spares and double parity RAID-Z
4 zpool history
5 Compression using the gzip algorithm
6 bootfs pool property and OSX directory type
For more information on a particular version, including supported releases, see:

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/version/N

Where 'N' is the version number.
sh-3.2# chmod -R 777 /Volumes/piszkos/
sh-3.2# zpool history piszkos
History for 'piszkos':
2007-10-06.12:35:16 zpool create piszkos disk1s1
2007-10-06.12:37:35 zfs set compression=on piszkos

so i checked an i can tell you that version 6 cannot boot on x86 even in solaris but version 8 can be patient guys :-)

i formated my external firewire drive in zfs and activated compression just to see what is happening i am copying some films on it about 90 GB.

the disk is now recognized as a volume tho.
if i disconnect the volume the mac tells me at the reconnection that is is an unrecognized format and offers to format it. if i try zpool online command the mac crashes. after reboot zpool tells me that there is no pool available.
this is not beta its ALPHA!!!

M.

wms121
Oct 25, 2007, 03:16 PM
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=128595🙓

..(no I am not referencing "soap code", "the opera browser" yada yada)..

..however it seems that "Intel and Transmeta" have resolved their lawsuit:

http://www.theregister.com/2007/10/25/intel_transmeta/

It would seem that the "barricades are being cleared" to higher bit addressing
Operating systems...see the TransMeta software blogs on 256-bit computing
(ULIW/VLIW):

http://www.transmeta.com/pdfs/techdocs/efficeon_tm8600_prod_brief.pdf

DAISY ULIW software for PPC variants?

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-525936.html

The Avispa chip..768 bit addressables (see p.2):

http://www.siliconhive.com/uploads/m48_siliconhive_rprnt.pdf


WW

desenso
Nov 2, 2007, 05:47 PM
So how does one get this installed anyways? I downloaded the developer package (free ADC membership), ran the installer, restarted, but none of the ZFS commands are working. (I have a Solaris ZFS server, i'm familiar with terminal usage)... first time I've ever tried a developer pack from Apple (didn't even know we could download them!).

I get an error:

You must be root in order to load the ZFS kext
internal error: failed to initialize ZFS library

Su won't give me root access... can anyone explain to me how one messes with developer things from apple? ;)

cohibadad
Nov 4, 2007, 01:27 AM
ZFS is pretty crazy cool. I've been playing with ZFS pools and and raidz. It works well. The only difficulty I've had is destroy a pool to reformat (had to boot into Leopard disk and diskutil erase. actually I had to zero out the data otherwise the thing was like some reanimating zombie coming back to life.) There is so much potential for real RAID data security. I'd love to see an enclosure with 3-4 removable hard drives daisy chained with FW800. No need for RAID hardware, just raidz the drives. Even if Apple doesn't make zfs bootable in Leopard, implementing read/write is huge.

DMann
Nov 4, 2007, 01:50 AM
ZFS is pretty crazy cool. I've been playing with ZFS pools and and raidz. It works well. The only difficulty I've had is destroy a pool to reformat (had to boot into Leopard disk and diskutil erase. actually I had to zero out the data otherwise the thing was like some reanimating zombie coming back to life.) There is so much potential for real RAID data security. I'd love to see an enclosure with 3-4 removable hard drives daisy chained with FW800. No need for RAID hardware, just raidz the drives. Even if Apple doesn't make zfs bootable in Leopard, implementing read/write is huge.

This is insanely promising, to say the very least!!!!

Rocketman
Nov 12, 2007, 09:49 PM
10.5.0 is for all practical purposes a public beta. 10.5.1 will be worth installing for bleeding edge users. 10.5.2 will probably be installed on shipping hardware (if 10.5.0 or 10.5.1 is, that would be "bad"), and will still require several software updates to use reasonably.

If you are a "trailing edge" user, please do yourself a favor and wait for 10.5.3.

Rocketman

To answer Cromulant I am not subject to NDA. Therefore I am free to talk at will.

I told you so.

:cool:

AnonMac50
Oct 5, 2013, 06:25 AM
To think Apple still hasn't implemented this in OS X.