PDA

View Full Version : Did Apple kill ZFS?




zombitronic
Jun 8, 2009, 04:35 PM
If you check out Google's cache (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:xc6veOk_OTQJ:www.apple.com/server/macosx/snowleopard/+apple+zfs&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) of the old Mac OS X Server Snow Leopard page, ZFS read and write support was touted as a new feature.

For business-critical server deployments, Snow Leopard Server adds read and write support for the high-performance, 128-bit ZFS file system, which includes advanced features such as storage pooling, data redundancy, automatic error correction, dynamic volume expansion, and snapshots.

Unfortunately, ZFS is nowhere to be found on the new Mac OS X Server Snow Leopard File Systems (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/file-system.html) page. Is anyone else bummed out about this?



foidulus
Jun 8, 2009, 05:31 PM
I know I am, ZFS is amazing, but it seems that there aren't a lot of devices out there that support it. I was hoping Snow Leopard server would allow us to automate a ton of our backups in a very fail-proof way, but it doesn't look good...

However, I'm not sure at this point whether it was Apple's decision or not. Oracle is now the new boss of Sun, and they may have been the ones who put the kibosh on the relationship....:mad:

mrfrosty
Jun 8, 2009, 06:02 PM
If it has been dropped i'd regard that as a big fail. ZFS is a true killer feature.

dazey
Jun 9, 2009, 09:08 AM
I noticed this drop too and was exited about zfs. With the growing amount of critical data I think its well over due having a filesystem that supports error correction. It was a big selling point for me.

wrldwzrd89
Jun 9, 2009, 10:12 AM
I think Apple still wants to implement ZFS in Mac OS X eventually. They haven't killed it per se, just postponed its implementation until 10.7 due to issues with the current implementation - such as boot support being somewhat sketchy still, and a few minor compatibility glitches.

BornAgainMac
Jun 9, 2009, 01:03 PM
It didn't need to be in 10.6. I think 10.7 (probably previewed in June of 2010) will show a new cat with this and 299 other new features.

geoffreak
Jun 9, 2009, 03:11 PM
And how many times has Apple killed ZFS now? :rolleyes:

Great Dave
Jun 9, 2009, 06:47 PM
It didn't need to be in 10.6...

Is that what you said when Apple dropped it in 10.5, too?

I wish Apple wouldn't do this...

No ZFS - that's dumb!

Jim Campbell
Jun 10, 2009, 04:40 AM
No ZFS - that's dumb!

Not if it doesn't bloody work, it isn't!

Cheers

Jim

steviem
Jun 10, 2009, 07:13 AM
No, sun did by not releasing it under the GPL.

mrfrosty
Jun 10, 2009, 09:57 AM
Sorry but ZFS clearly does work, both on Solaris and various flavours of linux via NFuse. For a company with Apple's resources a port to OSX is relatively trivial (especially considering where we already having unofficial r/w support !!). I don't care if i can't boot on it. The O/S takes around 10Gb thats nothing to re-install.....8Tb of data is a different story however.

The only reason I see Apple pulling this is because they hate me.

belvdr
Jun 10, 2009, 11:30 AM
For a personal use only computer, NTFS or HFS+ is fine with me. ZFS means nothing at all.

My guess is there are more typical users that feel this way than the other way around.

zombitronic
Jun 10, 2009, 01:30 PM
ZFS means nothing at all.

My guess is there are more typical users that feel this way than the other way around.

For most users, that's likely true. The fact that ZFS was supposed to be in Snow Leopard Server, not Client, is evidence that this feature was not targeted towards typical users. Any computer running as a data server with expandable internal storage, however, would benefit greatly from ZFS, especially with storage pooling and dynamic volume expansion.

jaw04005
Jun 10, 2009, 02:00 PM
For most users, that's likely true. The fact that ZFS was supposed to be in Snow Leopard Server, not Client, is evidence that this feature was not targeted towards typical users.

Yet anyway. They did the same thing with journaling. Introducing it as a feature of 10.2 Server* (and accessible in the client via the command line only), and making it the default option in 10.3 Panther client.

*Actually, it was released in the 10.2.2 point update to 10.2 Server. So, you never know, ZFS may come back in a later point update.

nuckinfutz
Jun 10, 2009, 02:31 PM
ZFS FTL !

ZFS for the Loss!

When we have affordable options for multi-bay storage ZFS will be important. Right now a majority of Macs sold have one hard drive bay.

ZFS is using a shotgun to kill a fly

zombitronic
Jun 10, 2009, 03:32 PM
When we have affordable options for multi-bay storage ZFS will be important. Right now a majority of Macs sold have one hard drive bay.

While that is true, a majority of those Macs are probably not running Server. The Servers are likely on Mac Pros or Xserves. Those machines aren't exactly affordable to the average consumer, but those are the users who would be using Server and would benefit from ZFS.

A SAN would be the perfect environment for ZFS. Again, not cheap, but it would be another reason for network admins to choose OS X Server over Solaris or Linux. I don't get why it has to be affordable to the majority of users to be important. Xsan isn't affordable to the majority of Mac users. That doesn't make Xsan unimportant.

nuckinfutz
Jun 10, 2009, 03:40 PM
While that is true, a majority of those Macs are probably not running Server. The Servers are likely on Mac Pros or Xserves. Those machines aren't exactly affordable to the average consumer, but those are the users who would be using Server and would benefit from ZFS.

A SAN would be the perfect environment for ZFS. Again, not cheap, but it would be another reason for network admins to choose OS X Server over Solaris or Linux. I don't get why it has to be affordable to the majority of users to be important. Xsan isn't affordable to the majority of Mac users. That doesn't make Xsan unimportant.

I'm a ZFS fan but it just feels a bit early to be worried about it right now. I'm curious to Apple's reasons for pulling it. Could it be the lawsuit with NetCrapp or Oracle? We'll find out soon enough.

If mature ZFS comes in 10.7 I won't mind at all. By then SSD will be more prevalent and we'll have even more storage options and hopefully even larger HDD drives.

Infrared
Jun 10, 2009, 03:52 PM
I'm a ZFS fan but it just feels a bit early to be worried about it right now. I'm curious to Apple's reasons for pulling it. Could it be the lawsuit with NetCrapp or Oracle? We'll find out soon enough.

If mature ZFS comes in 10.7 I won't mind at all. By then SSD will be more prevalent and we'll have even more storage options and hopefully even larger HDD drives.

ZFS will be ancient by the time Apple implements it!

Apple are seriously lagging the competition in a number of areas.
They're only now trailing in with a 64-bit kernel ages after Linux
and Microsoft had one. Their firmware is based on the outdated
EFI 1.1 standard. There is no blu-ray support yet. The list simply
goes on and on.

Apple really need to get up to speed because, from where I'm
standing, OS X looks more and more like the legacy operating
system.

nuckinfutz
Jun 10, 2009, 04:00 PM
ZFS will be ancient by the time Apple implements it!

Apple are seriously lagging the competition in a number of areas.
They're only now trailing in with a 64-bit kernel ages after Linux
and Microsoft had one. Their firmware is based on the outdated
EFI 1.1 standard. There is no blu-ray support yet. The list simply
goes on and on.

Apple really need to get up to speed because, from where I'm
standing, OS X looks more and more like the legacy operating
system.

It's a filesystem, it's not something you want to rush into production

I think OS that have high penetration in the server arena had to move to 64-bit a while ago at the kernel level.

Blu-ray ? Non factor optical technology has been in legacy mode for a while

If you want to impress me you should be debating the merits of Apple's Grand Central Dispatch with that of the Linux or BSD schedulers or discussing kernels at a more granular level.

I'm not one of your light duty computing buddies that's going to say

"oh wow man...64-bit is twice what 32-bit is huh dude"

You want to tell me that that OS X is behind you better bring your hard hat.

tedsmith3rd
Jun 10, 2009, 04:03 PM
No, sun did by not releasing it under the GPL.

Sun released ZFS under the CDDL
The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from implementing code in a closed-source project (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#CDDL-proprietary).
Even if it was GPL (it's not), Apple has plenty of straight GPL code already included in the OS, have a look (http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1057/).

belvdr
Jun 10, 2009, 04:15 PM
Sun released ZFS under the CDDL
The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from implementing code in a closed-source project (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#CDDL-proprietary).
Even if it was GPL (it's not), Apple has plenty of straight GPL code already included in the OS, have a look (http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1057/).

But any modifications to the ZFS code would require them to provide said code.

belvdr
Jun 10, 2009, 04:22 PM
You want to tell me that that OS X is behind you better bring your hard hat.

Only thing I wish they'd fix is the ability to run one application multiple times. It's a hack to get it to work. Any other OS post-1996 can do this, except OS X.

Did they ever fix the refresh issue in Finder where disk space and such was not updated?

nuckinfutz
Jun 10, 2009, 04:27 PM
Only thing I wish they'd fix is the ability to run one application multiple times. It's a hack to get it to work. Any other OS post-1996 can do this, except OS X.

Did they ever fix the refresh issue in Finder where disk space and such was not updated?

No there's something I've heard before and never got a good answer to. Running two instances of an app. I may have to do a little searching to see if anyone has found a good way to do this.

tedsmith3rd
Jun 10, 2009, 04:56 PM
But any modifications to the ZFS code would require them to provide said code.

Why do you think that would that be a problem? They already do that for the rest of darwin (http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1057/)... including the HFS+ filesystem and all the other filesystems OS X supports.

Infrared
Jun 10, 2009, 05:28 PM
It's a filesystem, it's not something you want to rush into production

They've had years already.

They are not even close to rushing.

Snails are moving faster.

nuckinfutz
Jun 10, 2009, 05:39 PM
They've had years already.

They are not even close to rushing.

Snails are moving faster.

Sun couldn't even boot from ZFS when Leopard was announced. That should tell you something.

Linux is working on BTFS so obviously their incumbunet file systems could use a little sprucing up.

Nah ..I don't think Apple's all that behind. They recognize they aren't an Enterprise company.

Infrared
Jun 10, 2009, 08:32 PM
Sun couldn't even boot from ZFS when Leopard was announced. That should tell you something.

Linux is working on BTFS so obviously their incumbunet file systems could use a little sprucing up.

A slight difference between needing to be spruced up and being
"utter crap".


Linus Torvalds

On the other hand, (Iíve found) OS X in some ways is actually worse than
Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which
is scary.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/q-and-a-with-linus-torvalds/2008/02/05/1202090403120.html

nuckinfutz
Jun 10, 2009, 08:34 PM
A slight difference between needing to be spruced up and being
"utter crap".

Yeah Linus really tore it up with Transmeta huh?

DoFoT9
Jun 10, 2009, 09:40 PM
interesting it does seem to have dissapeared, it must have proved much harder then they first thought! cant wait until it gets implemented though!

belvdr
Jun 11, 2009, 10:24 AM
Why do you think that would that be a problem? They already do that for the rest of darwin (http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1057/)... including the HFS+ filesystem and all the other filesystems OS X supports.

I didn't say that would be a problem; I was pointing out they would need to release that code.

foidulus
Jun 11, 2009, 10:29 AM
Apple set a really ambitious date for the client release of the OS, and that may have been what killed ZFS. Apple doesn't want to release the client version without the server, and the server certainly isn't important enough to Apple to hold up the client release, so features had to be cut and on the top of that list, ZFS:mad:

Infrared
Jun 11, 2009, 11:28 AM
Apple set a really ambitious date for the client release of the OS, and that may have been what killed ZFS. Apple doesn't want to release the client version without the server, and the server certainly isn't important enough to Apple to hold up the client release, so features had to be cut and on the top of that list, ZFS:mad:

That's speculative, but certainly possible. Here's another possibility:
OS X for the desktop (as opposed to iPhone) is low down Apple's
agenda. Apple do not have sufficient people working on it to push
through something like a new filesystem implementation.

nuckinfutz
Jun 11, 2009, 12:02 PM
That's speculative, but certainly possible. Here's another possibility:
OS X for the desktop (as opposed to iPhone) is low down Apple's
agenda. Apple do not have sufficient people working on it to push
through something like a new filesystem implementation.

How many people do you think it takes to push a new fs? Apple hired Domininic Giampaolo 7 years ago. He and a fairly small group of engineers wrote the Befs filesystem and did a good job. I would not be surprised to see Apple deliver their own filesystem.

It is possible that Apple doesn't have the staffing needed but that's one possibility out of an infinite amount of different possibilities.

The probablility of Apple neglecting Mac OS X in lieu of OS X for iPhone is low IMO. Both OS overlap in areas and some projects start on the iPhone and matriculate over the Mac (i.e Quicktime X) and some projects start on Mac OS and move to the iPhone (Core Data)

It'll be interesting to see if Apple hops back on the ZFS train or takes other options.

Infrared
Jun 11, 2009, 03:09 PM
The probablility of Apple neglecting Mac OS X in lieu of OS X for iPhone is low IMO.

Already happened once...

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/official-apple-delays-leopard-iphone-is-priority-1-251911.php

nuckinfutz
Jun 11, 2009, 03:14 PM
Already happened once...

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/official-apple-delays-leopard-iphone-is-priority-1-251911.php

By golly it has!

Ya know I see the error of my ways. It's clear to me now that Apple devoting resources to the iPhone to ensure a stable premier launch should define how we view the importance of iPhone and Mac product lines. This of course despite a successful launch of SDK 2 and this year a successful launch of SDK 3.0 and Snow Leopard WWDC Preview.

Silly me.

Infrared
Jun 11, 2009, 04:01 PM
By golly it has!

Ya know I see the error of my ways. It's clear to me now that Apple devoting resources to the iPhone to ensure a stable premier launch should define how we view the importance of iPhone and Mac product lines. This of course despite a successful launch of SDK 2 and this year a successful launch of SDK 3.0 and Snow Leopard WWDC Preview.

Silly me.

Filed under "blather".

nick9191
Jun 11, 2009, 04:10 PM
Only thing I wish they'd fix is the ability to run one application multiple times. It's a hack to get it to work. Any other OS post-1996 can do this, except OS X.

Did they ever fix the refresh issue in Finder where disk space and such was not updated?
Open Applications. Right click on desired app. Duplicate. Open both.

nuckinfutz
Jun 11, 2009, 04:11 PM
Filed under "blather".

au contraire

In the 3 major revisions to iPhone SDK Apple has only needed to delay Mac OS X one which means they are %66 likely to deliver everything on time and full featured with the momentum swinging upwards.

foidulus
Jun 11, 2009, 05:08 PM
Open Applications. Right click on desired app. Duplicate. Open both.

The easier thing is just to go into Terminal and launch from there(or wrap a simple shell script in Automator if you want to be able to launch from Finder)

The executable in every non-Java native app is (almost) always the same:
/Applications/(app name).app/Contents/MacOS/(app name)

To launch 2 Safaris:
Open up the normal safari, then in terminal type:

/Applicatons/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari &

(ignore the warnings it gives you)

voila! You can open as many instances of the app as you desire doing that, though keep in mind some apps are smart enough to detect if there is another instance of them running. For instance Remote Desktop won't let you launch multiple Remote Desktops.

belvdr
Jun 12, 2009, 09:52 AM
Open Applications. Right click on desired app. Duplicate. Open both.

Yeah, I know that, but that is just a hack. For example, when I was a Windows admin, I had to copy the RDC client 5 times to be able to multitask, which is quite dumb. Why can't one just double-click it and open another process?

If the underlying architecture is Unix-based which supports this, then this is a limitation introduced by Apple.

PlaceofDis
Jun 12, 2009, 10:03 AM
here are the two problems:

it'd require a major overhaul for it to be used by the system, but i agree, read and write support would have been nice to have.

sun was just bought out, no? probably hampering the development and deployment of ZFS in Macs since they were probably working close with sun.

jaw04005
Jun 12, 2009, 11:09 AM
Sun was just bought out, no? probably hampering the development and deployment of ZFS in Macs since they were probably working close with sun.

They were bought out by Oracle. Oracle is headed by Larry Ellison. Ellison is not only a former Apple board member, but widely known as one of Jobs' closest friends.

If Apple's wants ZFS, they'll get it.

If you want to know more about what ZFS is or what it can do --- Randal Schwartz and Leo Laporte did an interview with a few members of the ZFS product team at Sun. They even discuss (unofficially) Apple.

http://twit.tv/floss58

Tailpike1153
Jun 12, 2009, 12:41 PM
Didn't Apple just hire Ivan Kristic from OLPC a couple of weeks ago? What if they have something really insane up their sleeves for ZFS and the security feature Kristic may bring to the table? ZFS + plus super security...those would be killer no reason to buy an OS unless you're stone broke.

RedTomato
Jun 14, 2009, 09:18 AM
I suspect Apple's interest in ZFS came from when they still made Xserve storage racks, and when they were looking at having to massively expand their datacentres in preparation for iTunes, Mobile Me, and the iPhone. They were maybe hoping to use OXS Server / ZFS there.

Since then, they've stopped making Xserve storage racks, and buy in their storage from other companies, and probably found that running largescale datacentres is HARD.

I strongly suspect that their datacentres don't run on OSX. Probably some form of massive unix with massive databases.

Now that they have a solution implemented, some of the internal drive for Apple to sort out ZFS seems to have evaporated. Plus, what they have seems to be working reasonably fine now.

Bringing ZFS up to the standard where they can use it in their data centres (and they will have to, if they're to be a creditable seller of ZFS) will involve a massive amount of work, and considerable risk in their having to disrupt a working solution and implement an untried system. And not very many new sales of OSX Server overall.

OSX Server, while suitable for running departments, and small to mid-sized companies simply does not seem like a large enterprise system to me. It seems to lack the back-end tools that Windows enterprise, and the various large-deployment unixes have.

Apart from Apple HQ itself, I cannot think of any other large company that runs its entire enterprise on OSX Server. I'm sure there must be one or two, but I can't think of any.

Eraserhead
Jun 14, 2009, 02:49 PM
Only thing I wish they'd fix is the ability to run one application multiple times. It's a hack to get it to work. Any other OS post-1996 can do this, except OS X.

Yeah, I know that, but that is just a hack. For example, when I was a Windows admin, I had to copy the RDC client 5 times to be able to multitask, which is quite dumb. Why can't one just double-click it and open another process?

Why would you want to in general - you can open multiple documents at the same time on the Mac.

The only app that it really applies to is RDC, and there is no good reason Microsoft couldn't have made one app be able to launch multiple VM's at once.

EDIT: Certainly at least RDC 2.0 for Mac can open multiple VMs without duplicating the application, go to File>New Connection.

belvdr
Jun 15, 2009, 01:20 PM
Why would you want to in general - you can open multiple documents at the same time on the Mac.

The only app that it really applies to is RDC, and there is no good reason Microsoft couldn't have made one app be able to launch multiple VM's at once.

EDIT: Certainly at least RDC 2.0 for Mac can open multiple VMs without duplicating the application, go to File>New Connection.

VM? FYI, it's not a virtual machine. ;)

I'd like to do that because it's a single click when it's on the dock. It's a matter of efficiency. Still, Apple is blocking this from happening, and there's no reason to do so when the base allows it.

Can you open another window of Safari or Firefox by just clicking it on the dock? You couldn't do so in 10.4.