Journaling file system

bousozoku · Oct 15, 2002

eWeek added an article concerning the addition of a journaling file system (JFS) to Mac OS X in version 10.2.2.

This would allow the system to keep track of the data and more readily re-create it, rather than repair it (if the journals are intact, of course). There is a performance penalty to keep information on all the changes, as well as a storage penalty.

Here's the link: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,634711,00.asp

mac15 · Oct 15, 2002

cool, I heard rumors back a while ago, that 10.3 would bring a new file system, guees it might be true

FattyMembrane · Oct 15, 2002

great, my g3imac needs another speed hit in os x. however, i'm glad apple is deciding to create a new filesystem, the hfs+ is lacking in features. i read somewhere that the next major update to windows (longhorn, or blackcomb, or crap-in-the box, or whatever they're calling it) will have an sql based filesystem with journaling capabilities and all of the cool new features. it would suck if the mac os was lagging in this category (it already sounds like the power4 will leave us lagging in processor speed

).

edit: whoops! i spoke before i read the article. it seems that eweek addresses all of the things about xp's fs. oh well, it will help those of you who are as lazy as i am and dont bother to read links until after the fact

p.s. everyone who'se ever used the BeOS has said that it was pretty much the fastest system around, why wil the JFS of OS X bring such a slowdown? was BeOS so fast that this did not matter?

Tue12 · Oct 15, 2002

Without a doubt, Apple's software division is kicking ass and taking names.

Now if only Apple's hardware team would be get the CPUs needed to do the same.

bousozoku · Oct 15, 2002

My suspicions are that it will be a slowdown because it is an add-on to HFS+, not a replacement. Maybe there's a plug-in in the file systems folder for HFS+JFS. If it were a replacement, there would most likely be a formatting option. BFS was native, of course, but could also read HFS disks. Of course, Mac OS X already has more native applications (one way or the other) than BeOS ever did. What's the use of having a rocket when there's no place to go, right?

Also, if they're enabling it through the command line, they don't want the majority of users to use it yet. When it's really ready, perhaps in 10.3, there will probably be a formatting option or a system preference panel.

FattyMembrane: Isn't reading fun and informative?

Hemingray · Oct 15, 2002

Well, if you're a moron like me who needs a definition of what a Journaling File System is, here ya go:

http://searchHP.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid6_gci284007,00.html

This sounds very good! Could this possibly tie in with "Junkyard" or whatever that new Apple trademark was?

eric_n_dfw · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
great, my g3imac needs another speed hit in os x. however, i'm glad apple is deciding to create a new filesystem, the hfs+ is lacking in features.

Read the article again - it's journaling on top of HFS+.

Slashdot had this earlier today and I loved the first post, " ...when you pry HFS+ from my cold, dead hands."

Seriously, I wish I could use UFS, no more disk defragging, but, allas, for some reason we are "recomended" to stay on HFS+. Does anyone know, if I am running absolutely no Classic apps, could I go to UFS? Do Carbon app's still need it for anything?

Mr.Hey · Oct 15, 2002

Its off by default so no worries

StevenFr8 · Oct 15, 2002

Apple has been working on a JFS even before they released the public beta.
I was helping beta test Power On Software's Rewind product on Mac OS 9 and was talking to a friend of mine who works for Apple and about how I wished that it was better integrated with the OS and he told me that they where working on giving OSX a journaling file system that was probably not goning to make it into the first release but would be much better than anything that could be added in by a third party.

Interesting enough I did notice that Power On has not done anything about making a OSX version of rewind... even though when I was beta testing it was already planned.

j763 · Oct 16, 2002

rewind is being killed (THANK GOD!!!!!). PowerOn are not fulfilling any distributors orders for it. Speaking of the system performance decrease with JFS, why not throw rewind on it at the same time? Make it run REALLY DAMN SLOW!!!

i guess i just hate rewind

Cappy · Oct 16, 2002

Originally posted by bousozoku
My suspicions are that it will be a slowdown because it is an add-on to HFS+, not a replacement.

This could be but I doubt it's the whole reason. First of all keep in mind that there are things known as patents and Apple only has a former engineer, not Be's patents and intellectual property. They therefore must re-invent how this gets done if they're not licensing it from someone else. It almost does without saying that a first release is likely to not be quite perfect for some folks. Second, it'll probably depend on the harddrive and interface you are using. It appears the industry is moving more toward 8MB cache hard drives which should help and if others would follow IBM's lead and implement tagged queuing, that could help as well.

puffypoopy · Oct 16, 2002

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

Does anyone know, if I am running absolutely no Classic apps, could I go to UFS? Do Carbon app's still need it for anything?

YES, Carbon apps still need HFS+. So, you CANNOT move over to the more efficient UFS. I tried this once, and unfortunately no (carbon) apps worked. Too bad...

Apple][Forever · Oct 16, 2002

Originally posted by puffypoopy

YES, Carbon apps still need HFS+. So, you CANNOT move over to the more efficient UFS. I tried this once, and unfortunately no (carbon) apps worked. Too bad...

UFS doesn't support any metadata, like type or creator codes... so the only way your system knows what's what is via those horrible 3 letter extensions. Evil, evil file extensions.

medazinol · Oct 16, 2002

I should mention to all of you that the source never mentioned exactly where the performance loss would take place.

Its convenient to suggest the machine will see a 10-15% performance loss but perhaps its disk access that will suffer!

With the fast drive in my Dual 867 I doubt I would notice that.

Lets see what Apple says about this when its ready to go.

Nebrie · Oct 16, 2002

Originally posted by medazinol
I should mention to all of you that the source never mentioned exactly where the performance loss would take place.

Its convenient to suggest the machine will see a 10-15% performance loss but perhaps its disk access that will suffer!

With the fast drive in my Dual 867 I doubt I would notice that.

Lets see what Apple says about this when its ready to go.

It is disk performance, which you should not really notice. In any case, this was never designed for you people with slow Macs. This is for people with new Macs, XServes, or XRaids.

ryan · Oct 16, 2002

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
p.s. everyone who'se ever used the BeOS has said that it was pretty much the fastest system around, why wil the JFS of OS X bring such a slowdown? was BeOS so fast that this did not matter?

The BeOS was wickedly fast even on a 180MHz 603e based Mac clone. At the time I was, and sometimes still am, really disappointed that Apple decided to purchase NeXT instead of Be. Yes, with Be, Jobs would not have returned to power at Apple but the BeOS was so smooth to work with even on hardware that was not even 25% as powerful as today's slowest Macs. The BeOS felt like a very evolved version of the MacOS, not like the revolutionary feel that I think OSX has.

Choppaface · Oct 16, 2002

Originally posted by Apple][Forever

Evil, evil file extensions.

evil, evil creators codes...... I'd rather have to deal with file extensions than have to deal with preview opening all my jpegs when I want PS to open them, or PS opening them when I want preview....kill the file associations! >>_<<

benixau · Oct 16, 2002

preferences

Give us both. With a preference in the system preferences where you can choose which one takes preference when opening files. Also have another preference for diabling file extensions, or type/creator codes, or neither.

These would be for advanced users and basic users would get scared and not touch it. It would allow people to make mac os x use type creator codes with no file extensions once again.

For the basic user, the defaults should be file extensions take preference and niether are disabled. Why?? This is what apple want and it means that the basic user, who was convinced by apple that their were no compatability issues, would not notice any problems.

What does the rest think?? Good, bad, why wasnt it in 10.1??

rugby · Oct 16, 2002

Having a choice on this might be a bad idea. What if I don't want metadata and I send you a file and you have it turned on? You won't see the filetype creator and it will be a big mess. Try deleting the suffixes on Windows and try and open files. It's a big mess.

bousozoku · Oct 16, 2002

Originally posted by Cappy

This could be but I doubt it's the whole reason. First of all keep in mind that there are things known as patents and Apple only has a former engineer, not Be's patents and intellectual property. They therefore must re-invent how this gets done if they're not licensing it from someone else. It almost does without saying that a first release is likely to not be quite perfect for some folks.

Just because you create something similar doesn't mean that it's going to be slower. In fact, many times, you will learn from other's mistakes.

Since the author of BFS is in charge of the methodology for Apple's add-on JFS, he should know best how to move around his former techniques. After all, he re-wrote BFS.

Actually, it's sad that there are so many cracks in HFS+. It was very advanced for its early years but inter-operability in the modern age has sent it packing. UFS isn't exactly a thing of beauty either, but at least it supports upper and lowercase letters everywhere, in every way.

MisterMe · Oct 16, 2002

Originally posted by Choppaface

evil, evil creators codes...... I'd rather have to deal with file extensions than have to deal with preview opening all my jpegs when I want PS to open them, or PS opening them when I want preview....kill the file associations! >>_<<

Clearly, you are confused. You can change the application association of any file at any time. This can be done globally or on a case-by-case basis. That means that when you double-click on them, you can have some of your JPEG files open in Preview and others open in Photoshop or still others open in GraphicConverter. Perhaps, you could explain exactly what your problem is.

jgalun · Oct 17, 2002

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
p.s. everyone who'se ever used the BeOS has said that it was pretty much the fastest system around, why wil the JFS of OS X bring such a slowdown? was BeOS so fast that this did not matter?

I would guess that is the reason. bousozoku is wrong that the slowdown is because this is an add-on to HFS, instead of replacing HFS, and Cappy is wrong that this has to do with patents. The simple fact of the matter is that JFS requires more writing to the hard drive - when you create/delete/save a file, you are now not just writing that file itself, you are making a journal entry to note the change you have made to the file system. That requires extra writing to the hard drive, hence the performance hit.

I doubt very much that Be owned patents on some secret, brilliant JFS. JFS is a concept that has been understood for years in the OS world, it's not like Be woke up and invented it, or some new method for doing it. With time, there is no reason Apple couldn't write as good a JFS as Be.

So yes, BeOS and MacOS both will take about the same performance hit from having a JFS. The difference is that MacOS starts at a base point of needing a 333Mhz G3 with 256MB ram to run decently, while BeOS ran great on a 180Mhz PPC 603 with 64MB RAM.

TechLarry · Oct 17, 2002

Is this going to bust every file utility ever written for the Mac?

What about MacOS 9 access to volumes with this File System?

This one could be rocky !

I'd love to see it, but rocky indeed...

TL

TechLarry · Oct 17, 2002

Originally posted by Choppaface

evil, evil creators codes...... I'd rather have to deal with file extensions than have to deal with preview opening all my jpegs when I want PS to open them, or PS opening them when I want preview....kill the file associations! >>_<<

I agree. There's nothing inherently wrong with file extensions, and it's a damn site easier to identify than creator codes.

TL

sparkleytone · Oct 17, 2002

People aren't getting it.

This is NOT, i repeat, NOT a feature intended for use by the average user. The journaling filesystem is intended to be used by system administrators who oversee a group of workstations and servers that need data recovery capabilities greater than most of us will ever need. The plain and simple facts that it will be off by default, and can only be activated issuing commands to a shell indicate this strongly. Also, another plain and simple fact is I do not need journaling on my Mac, and I will not take the performance hit to have it. For 99% of all OS X Desktop users, fsck is just fine, and it runs itself when it needs to be run.

of course this is all assuming that eWeek is correct

Journaling file system

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502

macrumors newbie

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

macrumors 65816

macrumors regular

Moderator emeritus

macrumors G4

macrumors newbie

macrumors regular

macrumors regular

macrumors 68020

Our Staff