Did Apple kill ZFS?

Discussion in 'Mac OS X Server, Xserve, and Networking' started by zombitronic, Jun 8, 2009.

  1. macrumors 65816

    zombitronic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    #1
    If you check out Google's cache 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 page. Is anyone else bummed out about this?
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    #2
    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:
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    #3
    If it has been dropped i'd regard that as a big fail. ZFS is a true killer feature.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors G4

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 601

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    geoffreak

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    #7
    And how many times has Apple killed ZFS now? :rolleyes:
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    #8
    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!
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Jim Campbell

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Location:
    A World of my Own; UK
    #9
    Not if it doesn't bloody work, it isn't!

    Cheers

    Jim
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    steviem

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Location:
    New York, Baby!
    #10
    No, sun did by not releasing it under the GPL.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #12
    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.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 65816

    zombitronic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 601

    jaw04005

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    AR
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #15
    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
     
  16. thread starter macrumors 65816

    zombitronic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Infrared

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    #18
    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
    .
     
  19. macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    US
    #20
  21. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #21
  22. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #22
    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?
     
  23. macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    US
    #24
    Why do you think that would that be a problem? They already do that for the rest of darwin... including the HFS+ filesystem and all the other filesystems OS X supports.
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    Infrared

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    #25
    They've had years already.

    They are not even close to rushing.

    Snails are moving faster.
     

Share This Page