10.2.2 this Week?

CheekyGit

macrumors member
Oct 9, 2002
40
0
Alabama
I used BeOS 5 a few years ago. I thought it was cool. It would be interesting to see how journeling would affect OS X. Can't wait..:D
 

Kid Red

macrumors 65816
Dec 14, 2001
1,379
87
I think I read that in order to use the journaling you need to wipe and reinstall after formatting? If so, it's not gonna catch on right away.
 

reyesmac

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2002
373
53
Central Texas
Cool, another technology to slow down my system.:rolleyes: Seriously though, will this update disable the ability for the iBook to do monitor spanning, or how about disabling quartz extreme on non-authorized systems? Do Apple updates usually get rid of usefull hacks?:confused:
 

Falleron

macrumors 68000
Nov 22, 2001
1,609
0
UK
Any updates are welcome. I have no complaints with Jaguar. Some applications like Virtual PC need to be sorted out. However, Jaguar is solid.
 

gandalf55

macrumors 6502
Apr 13, 2001
343
0
boston
Journaling is supposed to be "off" by default. I don't know exactly who this kind of file system will benefit the most - but I think for the majority of us, we won't be using it. So no slow down.

About Quartz... I don't know how I feel about that. Either your system supports it or it doesn't. It's the vid card. So I imagine if you can't support it, your system won't slow down by its abscence... merely those who can use it get a nice speed bump.
 

shadowfax

macrumors 603
Sep 6, 2002
5,849
0
Houston, TX
it seems that quartz extreme is a way to speed up what OS X does. it offloads the CPU if you have a compatible GPU; if you don't, however, it still sends the operations the GPU would do in quartz extreme to your G4/G3, so it does slowdown your system not to have quartz extreme. eye candy can't be turned off in OS X by default. you have to hack it. i dunno why Apple is like that, but they are. it shouldn't bother people with radeons and whatnot though...
 

Hemingray

macrumors 68030
Jan 9, 2002
2,913
25
Ha ha haaa!
Originally posted by Shadowfax
i dunno why Apple is like that, but they are. it shouldn't bother people with radeons and whatnot though...
I have a fair idea. To "encourage" all of us early adopters of the New World macs to upgrade to Apple's latest and greatest offerings. But I'll be waiting another year or so, thanks anyway Apple. ;)
 

Arcady

macrumors 6502
May 24, 2002
402
24
Lexington, KY
Originally posted by Shadowfax
it seems that quartz extreme is a way to speed up what OS X does. it offloads the CPU if you have a compatible GPU; if you don't, however, it still sends the operations the GPU would do in quartz extreme to your G4/G3, so it does slowdown your system not to have quartz extreme. eye candy can't be turned off in OS X by default. you have to hack it. i dunno why Apple is like that, but they are. it shouldn't bother people with radeons and whatnot though...
That's not quite true. Quartz Extreme offloads the Quartz layer to your GPU, yes. But it does not make a system with an older video card "slower" than it was under 10.1.5. In fact, because of other improvements in 10.2, things are still faster even without a QE supported video card.

BTW, you can run QE on an unsupported video card by using a hack, as long as you have at least 16MB VRAM and a Radeon or better. The poster above wondered if this update will break the hack. Knowing Apple, it is not out of the question. After all, they tried to break the ROM in the B&W G3 so it would not run with a G4 ZIF installed. Sometimes Apple can be evil... :rolleyes:
 

shadowfax

macrumors 603
Sep 6, 2002
5,849
0
Houston, TX
That's not quite true. Quartz Extreme offloads the Quartz layer to your GPU, yes. But it does not make a system with an older video card "slower" than it was under 10.1.5. In fact, because of other improvements in 10.2, things are still faster even without a QE supported video card.
ahhh, my bad. that's what i meant, more or less. but it would slow your system down not to have it. as in, i am arguing from the theoretical standpoint of *having* QE.... it is slower not to have it. but yeah, 10.2 has enhanced Quartz rendering to speed things up even without a GPU.

my point was that the system does the same work without QE. it's just done in a different way, by the CPU, which, IMO, is not too cool for performance
 

MacBandit

macrumors 604
Originally posted by Shadowfax


ahhh, my bad. that's what i meant, more or less. but it would slow your system down not to have it. as in, i am arguing from the theoretical standpoint of *having* QE.... it is slower not to have it. but yeah, 10.2 has enhanced Quartz rendering to speed things up even without a GPU.

my point was that the system does the same work without QE. it's just done in a different way, by the CPU, which, IMO, is not too cool for performance
I think you are still partially missing the point. There was nothing added with 10.2 that slowed down any systems. In fact every system that can support OSX and even some that shouldn't saw a speed increase. Quartz Extreme is just an addon to offload some work from the CPU to a graphics card. Windows has been doing this for a year or two I think.

What I would like to see in 10.2.2 is a fix for these on going permission problems.

On another note I see no advantage with Journaling for the average user.
 

shadowfax

macrumors 603
Sep 6, 2002
5,849
0
Houston, TX
nah, i was quite aware that across the board, no matter what you have, jaguar is an improvement. i am just saying that not having having it does slow you down as compared to having it. this is obvious, because your system runs faster when you have it... the notion that Jaguar is an improvement whether or not you have a QE compatible card is outside the socope of my argument.

that journaling FS sounds pretty useless unless you want to restore your system in a snap... how much does that affect capacity? i mean, if you are keeping track of all those system states, doesn't the "log" build up? hardware performance decrease aside, how much extra space will this take?
 

markiv810

macrumors regular
Sep 27, 2002
199
9
in Limbo
How to use the J HFS +

To use JFS we would need complete 10.2.2 cd the software upgrade I don't think would help much in that direction, as I tried it already. Is it possible to change the file system of the partition while I am running Jaguar on the same partition?
 

scem0

macrumors 604
Jul 16, 2002
7,028
1
back in NYC!
I might be mistaken, but is this not the update that causes a 10% speed decrease with a payoff of better security or something. I like the better security, but a 10% speed decrease isn't quite as cool ;) . Macs are already slow enough, a speed decrease is exactly what we don't need. Oh well, I hope it is worth the download. :)
 

stukoch

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2002
20
0
what, no thank you

Amazing how all of you whiners who were yapping your little mouths off when Apple had the gall to charge us for a major upgrade, have all gone quite. Why are none of you now thanking Apple for implementing a major feature in a free upgrade? Apple could have (and maybe should have) waited until Pinot (10.3) to implement this, but they chose not to be greedy and get the best features out to us as soon as possible.

I, for one, happen to be very appreciative. Thank you Apple, again.

-Stu
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,502
1,784
Originally posted by scem0
I might be mistaken, but is this not the update that causes a 10% speed decrease with a payoff of better security or something. I like the better security, but a 10% speed decrease isn't quite as cool ;) . Macs are already slow enough, a speed decrease is exactly what we don't need. Oh well, I hope it is worth the download. :)
I think it's a 10% speed decrease for disk operations

arn
 

scem0

macrumors 604
Jul 16, 2002
7,028
1
back in NYC!
Originally posted by arn


I think it's a 10% speed decrease for disk operations

arn
Well, that is good. I was thinking it would slow down everything. That wouldn't have been good. This update is going to be better then I thought :D. It doesn't really apply to me, since I got a PC, but I still own a mac. Oh well. :rolleyes:
 

tychay

macrumors regular
Jul 1, 2002
219
29
San Francisco, CA
speed and journalling

This has been hashed over many times, but the claim, "10% hit in performance due to journalling" probably only comes during times when your computer has to write to disk (Caveat: this can be all the time if you have very little RAM and your swap partition is journalled (??), also there are disk writes during reads if the filesystem is logging last access times). That's when the journalling code kicks in since it has to write to the transaction journal before writing the file.

Having just rebuilt my hard drive after a destroyed extents file (my cat has suddenly figured out that pawing the silver button for 5 seconds turns off the machine), I for one can appreciate journalling.

Actually, the press has done such a horrible job of reporting, I can't actually be sure of anything. I've seen all the errors below committed in various discussions of "Elvis":
  • A file system cannot be made journalling without reformatting the hard drive. False: Red Hat's ext3 FS can be upgraded from the standard ext2 without reformatting.
  • A journalled filesystem means the drive cannot be read by a OS that doesn't support it (i.e. OS9 or OS10<10.2.2). False: you can mount ext3 partitions as ext2.
  • Journalling is always slower than not-journalling. False: It could be made faster in busy filesystems because it can be used to spread disk writes over time (compare ReiserFS performance to ext2).
  • Journalling means less disk space because it has to keep a transaction log. False: ReiserFS can squeeze many small files into a single block.
  • Journalling only speeds rebooting. False: As my cat has shown, /sbin/fsck -y (which is what is executed during bootup and by Disk Utility) doesn't always restore the file system to a sane state.
  • Journalling is only for reliability. False: Besides performance reasons. A new FS means you could fix things on FS-related tasks like file size (minimum blocks size and mazimum file size), disk size, access control, hot backups, and I/O rate. All of which are found in high performance journaled file systems like SGI XFS and IBM JFS.
  • Journalling is only for servers or large disk arrays. False: People said similar things about pre-emptive multitasking and memory protection.

Now you won't have everything. Given Apple's history I'd bet that they'd worry more about the reliability and compatibility and less about the performance gains of journalling, so it will probably be modelled closer to the way ext3 rides on top of ext2 than as a high-performance file system like ReiserFS.

Take care,

terry
 

shadowfax

macrumors 603
Sep 6, 2002
5,849
0
Houston, TX
thanks, that was highly informative!

so (sorry i am not an OS X user yet... i have used mandrake linux and redhat some (md-linux somewhat more extensively) OS X uses a swap disk like all other linux? that seems like it would make a journalling system worth it (assuming you wouldn't (and why would you?) format the swap as a journalling file system. i mean, then it's only seriously slowing you down when you install big things, or download/save large files.

so since you can mount ext3 as ext2, what happens when you use the ext3 as ext2? i would assume it wouldn't keep up it's journalling, if ext2 doesn't support that. so does it just not log transactions when it's mounted as ext2? how does that come into play when you mount it again as ext3 and everything is moved around from your ext2 session (provided it can indeed not journal in ext2)?

all in all, though, we never turn our nose up at features like this. even if you'll never use it, it's good to know you can just in case.
 

tychay

macrumors regular
Jul 1, 2002
219
29
San Francisco, CA
Originally posted by Shadowfax
thanks, that was highly informative!

OS X uses a swap disk like all other linux?
No. OSX does not use a swap partition, though it can be made to have a separate partition for swap. My guess is Apple's design philosophy is such that they traded performance gains (due to partitioning) for simplicity in management. This leads me to believe Elvis will do the same (not be designed around performance).

format the swap as a journalling file system. i mean, then it's only seriously slowing you down when you install big things, or download/save large files.
Actually you don't want to use a journaled FS for swap, since swap is effectively volatile (gets wiped during a reboot). In the case of Linux, it uses a special FS just for swap which is really neat--for instance, if you create two swap partitions on different hard disks, then Linux will "stripe" the swap space making the effective speed of swap twice as fast (if using IDE drives, you'll need to connect those disks to separate controllers to see a gain).

so since you can mount ext3 as ext2, what happens when you use the ext3 as ext2? i would assume it wouldn't keep up it's journalling, if ext2 doesn't support that. so does it just not log transactions when it's mounted as ext2? how does that come into play when you mount it again as ext3 and everything is moved around from your ext2 session (provided it can indeed not journal in ext2)?
I don't use ext3, so I can't say. When mounted as ext2, the transaction log is not written to. When mounted again as ext3, it must first be unmounted. Thus the journalling (crash protection) is reenabled. Red Hat sacrifices the speed and disk space efficiency gains journalling can give for compatibility and a performance hit. BTW, think of journalling as a record of differences from the last successful transaction, not as a "diary" of every transaction that has occurred on the computer, so the "everything moved around" is not an issue.

Sorry I can't explain better because I don't rightly know myself. Hopefully better minds than me will do so.

terry
 

markiv810

macrumors regular
Sep 27, 2002
199
9
in Limbo
How am I supposed to format 10.2.2 JFS

After upgrading to 10.2.2, how do I change file format then. I have 10.2.2 beta I cannot do the change to JFS without erasing and re-installing. I need some suggetions on that, as I would like to have JFS.