Hey everyone. .very excited about the new Mac Pro - but does anyone know if WWDC '06 attendees received a pre-realease copy of Leopard?? Let's hope so!! 😉
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Developer Version of Leopard?
- Thread starter ReliableRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not really, it is not that different than Sun's ZFS (assuming that it is't ZFS), where it utilizes Subversion (an enhanced version of CVS) to keep track of how data changes over time.
For example, if you add one paragraph to a word document, when you save, it performs a compare on the copy in memory and on the hard disk, figures out the data that changes and then save the changes to a new pseudo-file that is accessed through the linker table (what you would think of as a file, where it tells the OS which sectors of the hard disk has the data that needs to be put back together.
In fact, OpenOffice under Solaris 10 demonstrated that as a workstation, ZFS made data storate more efficient as contents of files that do not change (like file headers, images imbedded in documents, etc) do not need to be added to files. In turn, you would have one header and footer for a Word Document on your computer that is accessed with every single Word document that is saved, so all it deals with is plain text (making a 50KB file ~4KB of actual new hard disk space used). That test was the Solaris Manual in a Word Document (*.doc) created and saved on that machine in OpenOffice.
For example, if you add one paragraph to a word document, when you save, it performs a compare on the copy in memory and on the hard disk, figures out the data that changes and then save the changes to a new pseudo-file that is accessed through the linker table (what you would think of as a file, where it tells the OS which sectors of the hard disk has the data that needs to be put back together.
In fact, OpenOffice under Solaris 10 demonstrated that as a workstation, ZFS made data storate more efficient as contents of files that do not change (like file headers, images imbedded in documents, etc) do not need to be added to files. In turn, you would have one header and footer for a Word Document on your computer that is accessed with every single Word document that is saved, so all it deals with is plain text (making a 50KB file ~4KB of actual new hard disk space used). That test was the Solaris Manual in a Word Document (*.doc) created and saved on that machine in OpenOffice.
Well, that is the snag.
Under ZFS, you would specify file types as far as how long they are kept, or how long something is kept if it is not touched.
So, in Solaris you would say that for *.mov files, after they are deleted, store for 2 weeks prior to removing completely.
Or, any file that is not edited in 6 months, delete all previous versions greater than 12 months old.
True, there will always be the exception like downloading/backing up movies where you do not need the original data any more. However, I seriously think that Apple will end up including a way to "Delete Perminantly", as they do with the secure erase now.
It would not really be that difficult to add a CTLR-Click option that states "Delete Forever", or specify certain folders as "Never Include in TimeMachine"
Under ZFS, you would specify file types as far as how long they are kept, or how long something is kept if it is not touched.
So, in Solaris you would say that for *.mov files, after they are deleted, store for 2 weeks prior to removing completely.
Or, any file that is not edited in 6 months, delete all previous versions greater than 12 months old.
True, there will always be the exception like downloading/backing up movies where you do not need the original data any more. However, I seriously think that Apple will end up including a way to "Delete Perminantly", as they do with the secure erase now.
It would not really be that difficult to add a CTLR-Click option that states "Delete Forever", or specify certain folders as "Never Include in TimeMachine"
balamw
Moderator emeritus
SVN based would be nice and make sense. Both Time Machine and Vista's Previous Versions support however bring back not-so-pleasant memories of VMS for me, which kept as many versions of files as you wanted, appending a semicolon and version number after each file name...projectle said:
We'll see more about how useful/well implemented the features turn out to be (or the opposite) when the two OSes see the light of day next year.
B