ZFS in Latest Leopard Builds

MacRumors · 05:12 PM

Several sites are reporting on ZFS support that is now built into the latest build of Mac OS X (Leopard) which was seeded last week.

The ZFS team at Sun was contacted by Apple in April about porting ZFS to Mac OS X. Arstechnica previously discussed advantages of ZFS as a file system. These include

- Efficient storage and handling of very small files.
- Logical volume management through a pooled storage model.
- Improved data integrity using checksums on all data.
- Snapshots

Mac4Ever first posted a screenshot of the ZFS formatting option now in Leopard:

More information on ZFS is available at the ZFS homepage and Wikipedia.

failsafe1 · Dec 18, 2006, 04:43 PM

Could this mean revolutionary things ahead for the next OS? Perhaps better integration with new hardware?

m-dogg · Dec 18, 2006, 04:47 PM

So will ZFS just be supported by Leopard, or will the entire file system be based off this?

I remember reading that article on Arstechnica and the idea of Time Machine with ZFS sounded pretty interesting.

jmbear · Dec 18, 2006, 04:47 PM

Cool! I love ZFS!

killmoms · Dec 18, 2006, 04:48 PM

ZFS makes me a little bit horny. Just a bit. First filesystem to do that since BFS, actually.

OH NO I'M CHEATING ON MY FIRST FILESYSTEM LOVE!

eskalation.dk · Dec 18, 2006, 04:49 PM

wtf? i hav absolutely no idea what it is, but it sounds cool... YAY!

Paranoidmarvin · Dec 18, 2006, 04:49 PM

HFS is getting tired, you can tell by the number of names they have tacked onto the end (HFS+ Journaled)!
Bring on ZFS, it makes sense with Time machine

killmoms · Dec 18, 2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmarvin

Bring on ZFS, it makes sense with Time machine

If they actually use its built-in diff/snapshot ability for Time Machine instead of the ugly hack onto HFS+ we saw as of the original dev preview, I might have to go offer my body up to any of Apple's filesystem developers.

BRLawyer · Dec 18, 2006, 04:51 PM

For us poor plebeians, what the hell does the adoption of ZFS bring anyway? Is it just another geeky filesystem, or something that might really make a difference for ordinary users?

At least HFS enabled much bigger storage and more sensible partitioning back then...could any of you clarify this issue for the non-file server admins out there? Thanks.

SeaFox · Dec 18, 2006, 04:52 PM

Awesome. The idea of being able to use ZFS in OSX was quite exciting to me when I first read the rumors before. Especially the "pooled storage" method. I assume this would be the end of one's home folder being full because the drive it resides on is full, since an additional drive added to the machine would just add to the shared pool for storage. The home folder would no longer be limited to a single device. That and the redundancy and backup features.

Ars Technica has suggested that this would be required for Time Machine to function, but isn't Time Machine already included in the developer's previews?

Peace · Dec 18, 2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

For us poor plebeians, what the hell does the adoption ZFS bring anyway? Is it just another geeky filesystem, or something that might really make a difference for ordinary users?

At least HFS enabled much bigger storage and more sensible partitioning back then...could any of you clarify this issue for the non-file server admins out there? Thanks.

The Zettabyte file system is 128-bit for one.

kainjow · Dec 18, 2006, 04:55 PM

Zis iz zery awezome!

BRLawyer · Dec 18, 2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace

The Zettabyte file system is 128-bit for one.

Meaning..?

Westside guy · Dec 18, 2006, 04:56 PM

ZFS isn't currently bootable; but I'm not sure that matters since OS X uses a separate boot partition.

The big draw with ZFS, AFAIK, is it has the ability to manage differential file snapshots. So Time Machine would be a heck of a lot faster than if it's managed by an application within the OS.

I would bet that, with Leopard, it'll be an option but not the default. Analogous to the way case-sensitive HFS+ is currently handled. I'd be tempted to try it if it's available.

I wonder how it will handle resource forks though? I don't know if ZFS has that sort of thing available.

secretz · Dec 18, 2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace

The Zettabyte file system is 128-bit for one.

And how that means what to regular users?

Edit: Slow

Peace · Dec 18, 2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Meaning..?

A later release of Leopard will be 128 bit instead of 64 bit

sweetandsour · Dec 18, 2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

For us poor plebeians, what the hell does the adoption of ZFS bring anyway? Is it just another geeky filesystem, or something that might really make a difference for ordinary users?

At least HFS enabled much bigger storage and more sensible partitioning back then...could any of you clarify this issue for the non-file server admins out there? Thanks.

There are at least 3 links helpfully given in the article at the begining of the thread to clear, useful, not over-technical discussion and description of zfs. You should read them.

kainjow · Dec 18, 2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westside guy

ZFS isn't currently bootable; but I'm not sure that matters since OS X uses a separate boot partition.

Check out ZFS Boot.

killmoms · Dec 18, 2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Meaning..?

Seriously, just read the John Sicarusa Fat.Bits blog linked in the newspost. It's easy to read and explains all the advantages of ZFS.

MacVault · Dec 18, 2006, 05:07 PM

I don't really know what I'm talking about as I'm no filesystem guru by any means, but I do remember rumors in the past of Windows and/or OS X going to some kind of sql-database-driven-super-efficient-fast-revolutionary-metadata filesystem. My question is how does ZFS compare to that??? How does it compare to the [vaporware] WinFS???

DXoverDY · Dec 18, 2006, 05:08 PM

Let's run through a simple example.

You have 1 hard drive right? You are running out of space. You go buy another drive. You want to add it to the system but now you have to decide whether you want that drive to just handle storage of files, and if so which files? Well, how about this instead? You can add the drive as a pool. It then "magically" appears as if your original drive is now x gigabytes larger than it is since it is using two drives as a pool. Convenient no?

Or how about you want to backup that drive instead? Ok, add a drive to the system. Add it to the pool, tell it to mirror the drive instead. It now copies the data from one drive to the other and any changes mirror the other. If a corrupt file is on drive 1 (your original working copy) it checks the other to see if the backup is non-corrupt. If so, it opens that file, and copies the good data to the original drive as good data. It does this with Checksums of the files.

Another for the geekiness factor is RAIDZ. One drive or two can be a parity drive. Ever use PAR files? Yup very similar. You have files or a whole drive disappear? You can pretty much restore it from the parity drive if enough of the data still exists, etc.

Or how about you like having "versions" of your filesystem. You're about to update OS X to 10.5.2 and you're afraid it might break your system. So you create a ZFS snapshot. It now olds this "snapshot" of your filesystem and the files in it. You install the new update, it does indeed bork your computer. So you tell OS X and ZFS to use a previous snapshot, boom. You're back to 10.5.1 and it works.

Also the idea of using ZFS with time machine, is really really cool. Also, on the fly compression of your files. With no real performance hit. Another neat one is built in encryption. So you'll be able to have file vault at the filesystem level rather than the OS X application/OS level.

sparkleytone · Dec 18, 2006, 05:11 PM

Think about these things:

1) Shutting down your Mac Pro, opening it up and adding another hard drive. When you boot back into OS X, it tells you that you have added another hard drive and asks whether or not you'd like to add it to your "Macintosh HD" or whatever you call it. When you say yes, it automatically adds the space to your available space, and also automagically spreads your data out in the most efficient ways.

2) One of your hard drives on your Mac begins to corrupt data. Your filesystem automatically detects this, AND heals it by recreating the data on one of the other HD's in your ZFS pool.

3) Each user on your system literally has their own entire filesystem devoted to their data. No reasons to use quotas, as the actual filesystem is only a certain size that you set.

4) Each of the very small text files on your system, of which there are thousands, take up the size that they are instead of the fs block size. Lots of unused and previously unusable space saved.

5) Having multiple "snapshots" of your data, in the paradigm of Time Machine. Except get this...each snapshot is a snapshot of how the blocks look, not your files. So the size of each snapshot is only however much space it takes to record what blocks have changed.

shawnce · 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m-dogg

So will ZFS just be supported by Leopard, or will the entire file system be based off this?

ZFS is a file system (a very capable modern one) so the later part of your question doesn't make sense. If you mean "will Apple make ZFS the default file system for Mac OS X?" then I would say "not likely any time soon (but I would be happy to be wrong)".

aspro · Dec 18, 2006, 05:13 PM

This sounds very interesting, always good to be able to use the latest new tech.

From the Wikipedia article: "Populating 128-bit file systems would exceed the quantum limits of earth-based storage. You couldn't fill a 128-bit storage pool without boiling the oceans."

I wonder how long until we hit that limit :P

kresh · Dec 18, 2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macrumors

Mac4Ever first posted a screenshot of the ZFS formatting option now in Leopard:

I did not see a menu option for compression. I really like ZFS' 2-3x (on the fly) compression. I hope it is supported.

Dec 18, 2006, 04:40 PM	#1
MacRumors macrumors bot Join Date: Apr 2001	ZFS in Latest Leopard Builds Several sites are reporting on ZFS support that is now built into the latest build of Mac OS X (Leopard) which was seeded last week. The ZFS team at Sun was contacted by Apple in April about porting ZFS to Mac OS X. Arstechnica previously discussed advantages of ZFS as a file system. These include - Efficient storage and handling of very small files. - Logical volume management through a pooled storage model. - Improved data integrity using checksums on all data. - Snapshots Mac4Ever first posted a screenshot of the ZFS formatting option now in Leopard: More information on ZFS is available at the ZFS homepage and Wikipedia. Last edited by Knox : Dec 18, 2006 at 05:12 PM.

Dec 18, 2006, 04:48 PM	#5
killmoms macrumors 68040 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Washington, DC	ZFS makes me a little bit horny. Just a bit. First filesystem to do that since BFS, actually. OH NO I'M CHEATING ON MY FIRST FILESYSTEM LOVE! __________________ killmoms.com - Well, don't really. Goodbye Velocity and Yaseko, say hello to... Henrietta: 15" MacBook Pro, 2.33GHz C2D, 2GB RAM Kyoko: 8GB iPhone

Dec 18, 2006, 04:49 PM	#7
Paranoidmarvin macrumors newbie Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Morayshire, Scotland	HFS is getting tired, you can tell by the number of names they have tacked onto the end (HFS+ Journaled)! Bring on ZFS, it makes sense with Time machine __________________ Life is like a grapefruit. It's sort of orangey-yellow and squidgy in the middle. It's got pips inside too. Oh, and some people have one for breakfast

Dec 18, 2006, 04:51 PM	#9
BRLawyer macrumors 68020 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Currently in Switzerland	For us poor plebeians, what the hell does the adoption of ZFS bring anyway? Is it just another geeky filesystem, or something that might really make a difference for ordinary users? At least HFS enabled much bigger storage and more sensible partitioning back then...could any of you clarify this issue for the non-file server admins out there? Thanks. __________________ iMac 24" C2D 2.8, 4Gb, 500Gb+1.25Tb, JBL Creature II, Creative XMod, OS X 10.6.2; iBook G3 Dual-USB 500MHz, 384Mb, 15Gb, OS X 10.4.11

Dec 18, 2006, 04:52 PM	#10
SeaFox macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Somewhere Else	Awesome. The idea of being able to use ZFS in OSX was quite exciting to me when I first read the rumors before. Especially the "pooled storage" method. I assume this would be the end of one's home folder being full because the drive it resides on is full, since an additional drive added to the machine would just add to the shared pool for storage. The home folder would no longer be limited to a single device. That and the redundancy and backup features. Ars Technica has suggested that this would be required for Time Machine to function, but isn't Time Machine already included in the developer's previews? __________________ "In the room was the last person on Earth. Suddenly, there was a knock at the door..."

Dec 18, 2006, 04:43 PM	#2
failsafe1 macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jul 2003	Could this mean revolutionary things ahead for the next OS? Perhaps better integration with new hardware?

Dec 18, 2006, 04:47 PM	#3
m-dogg macrumors 65816 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Connecticut	So will ZFS just be supported by Leopard, or will the entire file system be based off this? I remember reading that article on Arstechnica and the idea of Time Machine with ZFS sounded pretty interesting.

Dec 18, 2006, 04:47 PM	#4
jmbear macrumors member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Mexico	Cool! I love ZFS!

Dec 18, 2006, 04:49 PM	#6
eskalation.dk macrumors member Join Date: Oct 2006	wtf? i hav absolutely no idea what it is, but it sounds cool... YAY!

Dec 18, 2006, 04:55 PM	#12
kainjow Demi-God (Moderator) Join Date: Jun 2000	Zis iz zery awezome!

Dec 18, 2006, 04:56 PM	#14
Westside guy macrumors 68040 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The soggy part of the Pacific NW	ZFS isn't currently bootable; but I'm not sure that matters since OS X uses a separate boot partition. The big draw with ZFS, AFAIK, is it has the ability to manage differential file snapshots. So Time Machine would be a heck of a lot faster than if it's managed by an application within the OS. I would bet that, with Leopard, it'll be an option but not the default. Analogous to the way case-sensitive HFS+ is currently handled. I'd be tempted to try it if it's available. I wonder how it will handle resource forks though? I don't know if ZFS has that sort of thing available. __________________ The fevered rantings found in this post are generated randomly. Any resemblance to coherent thought is completely coincidental.

Dec 18, 2006, 05:07 PM	#20
MacVault macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Planet Earth	ZFS vs WinFS (SQL-database-filesystem)? I don't really know what I'm talking about as I'm no filesystem guru by any means, but I do remember rumors in the past of Windows and/or OS X going to some kind of sql-database-driven-super-efficient-fast-revolutionary-metadata filesystem. My question is how does ZFS compare to that??? How does it compare to the [vaporware] WinFS??? __________________ GabSlab.com

Dec 18, 2006, 05:08 PM	#21
DXoverDY macrumors 6502a Join Date: Apr 2005	Let's run through a simple example. You have 1 hard drive right? You are running out of space. You go buy another drive. You want to add it to the system but now you have to decide whether you want that drive to just handle storage of files, and if so which files? Well, how about this instead? You can add the drive as a pool. It then "magically" appears as if your original drive is now x gigabytes larger than it is since it is using two drives as a pool. Convenient no? Or how about you want to backup that drive instead? Ok, add a drive to the system. Add it to the pool, tell it to mirror the drive instead. It now copies the data from one drive to the other and any changes mirror the other. If a corrupt file is on drive 1 (your original working copy) it checks the other to see if the backup is non-corrupt. If so, it opens that file, and copies the good data to the original drive as good data. It does this with Checksums of the files. Another for the geekiness factor is RAIDZ. One drive or two can be a parity drive. Ever use PAR files? Yup very similar. You have files or a whole drive disappear? You can pretty much restore it from the parity drive if enough of the data still exists, etc. Or how about you like having "versions" of your filesystem. You're about to update OS X to 10.5.2 and you're afraid it might break your system. So you create a ZFS snapshot. It now olds this "snapshot" of your filesystem and the files in it. You install the new update, it does indeed bork your computer. So you tell OS X and ZFS to use a previous snapshot, boom. You're back to 10.5.1 and it works. Also the idea of using ZFS with time machine, is really really cool. Also, on the fly compression of your files. With no real performance hit. Another neat one is built in encryption. So you'll be able to have file vault at the filesystem level rather than the OS X application/OS level.

Dec 18, 2006, 05:11 PM	#22
sparkleytone macrumors 68020 Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC	Think about these things: 1) Shutting down your Mac Pro, opening it up and adding another hard drive. When you boot back into OS X, it tells you that you have added another hard drive and asks whether or not you'd like to add it to your "Macintosh HD" or whatever you call it. When you say yes, it automatically adds the space to your available space, and also automagically spreads your data out in the most efficient ways. 2) One of your hard drives on your Mac begins to corrupt data. Your filesystem automatically detects this, AND heals it by recreating the data on one of the other HD's in your ZFS pool. 3) Each user on your system literally has their own entire filesystem devoted to their data. No reasons to use quotas, as the actual filesystem is only a certain size that you set. 4) Each of the very small text files on your system, of which there are thousands, take up the size that they are instead of the fs block size. Lots of unused and previously unusable space saved. 5) Having multiple "snapshots" of your data, in the paradigm of Time Machine. Except get this...each snapshot is a snapshot of how the blocks look, not your files. So the size of each snapshot is only however much space it takes to record what blocks have changed. __________________ "The Reality Distiortion Field™ is starting to warp Steve's mind if he thinks for one second that this thing is gonna take off."

Dec 18, 2006, 05:13 PM	#24
aspro macrumors 6502 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Hobart, Australia	This sounds very interesting, always good to be able to use the latest new tech. From the Wikipedia article: "Populating 128-bit file systems would exceed the quantum limits of earth-based storage. You couldn't fill a 128-bit storage pool without boiling the oceans." I wonder how long until we hit that limit :P __________________ 13" Macbook [2.16Ghz/2GB/120GB/Mac OSX 10.5.1/iPod classic 80GB]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode