Journaling file system

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by bousozoku, Oct 15, 2002.

  1. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #1
    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
     
  2. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #2
    cool, I heard rumors back a while ago, that 10.3 would bring a new file system, guees it might be true
     
  3. FattyMembrane macrumors 6502a

    FattyMembrane

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Location:
    bat country
    #3
    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 :D

    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?
     
  4. Tue12 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    #4
    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.
     
  5. bousozoku thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #5
    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? :D
     
  6. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #6
  7. eric_n_dfw macrumors 65816

    eric_n_dfw

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Location:
    DFW, TX, USA
    #7
    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?
     
  8. Mr.Hey macrumors 6502

    Mr.Hey

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
  9. StevenFr8 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    #9
    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.:D
    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.:rolleyes:
     
  10. j763 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Location:
    Champaign, IL, USA
    #10
    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!!! ;) :D :)

    i guess i just hate rewind :)
     
  11. Cappy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    #11
    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.
     
  12. puffypoopy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    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...
     
  13. Apple][Forever macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    #13
    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.
     
  14. medazinol macrumors regular

    medazinol

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto
    #14
    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.
     
  15. Nebrie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    #15
    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.
     
  16. ryan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Choppaface macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    SFBA
    #17
    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! >>_<<
     
  18. benixau macrumors 65816

    benixau

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #18
    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??
     
  19. rugby macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #19
    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.
     
  20. bousozoku thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #20
    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.
     
  21. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #21
    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.
     
  22. jgalun macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #22
    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.
     
  23. TechLarry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    #23
    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
     
  24. TechLarry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    #24
    I agree. There's nothing inherently wrong with file extensions, and it's a damn site easier to identify than creator codes.

    TL
     
  25. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #25
    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 ;)
     

Share This Page