Adam Leventhal's blog » ZFS: Apple’s New Filesystem That Wasn’t

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by grahamperrin, Jun 17, 2016.

  1. grahamperrin macrumors 601

    grahamperrin

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #1
  2. AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #2
    But ZFS was alleged to have been stolen from NetApp as were the snapshots for copy on write.
    No doubt the legal action against Sun and others was a worry and maybe a contributing factor.
     
  3. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #3
    Apple seems to be more interested in creating something inhouse

    Plus as noted in the linked article
    then there's this
    At this point ZFS is dead - at least for consumers. Apple has a new file system in the works, MS has theirs and of course Linux relies on ext4
     
  4. grahamperrin thread starter macrumors 601

    grahamperrin

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #4
    APFS is expected to do some things that ZFS can not, ZFS does some things that APFS can not or will not. I would not describe ZFS as dead for consumers.
     
  5. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #5
    Of course it is.

    What operating system ships with ZFS?
     
  6. grahamperrin thread starter macrumors 601

    grahamperrin

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #6
    Unless I'm missing something: nothing in the article suggested that Apple might now, or in the future, ship macOS with ZFS.

    For Mac users, there's the third party solution.

    PC-BSD began booting from ZFS around five years ago. Integral support for ZFS began some time before that, I don't know when.
     
  7. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #7
    Agreed, Apple has moved on from ZFS, hence my comment its dead.

    For the majority of consumers, there's absolutely no need and low demand for a third party file system. its basically a solution looking for a problem.

    Not even the ZFS engineers from Apple could make a compelling case to use ZFS, as their company failed to make any money and was bought out by Greenbytes.

    Yup, and maybe 2016 will be the year of linux desktop

    Consumers are not by and large using Linux, never mind ZFS. Sure there are hobbiests and pockets of usage. I'm not knocking Linux, I've used it before, but for general consumer usage, Linux is not on the short list for people. Nor is a third party file system. Most people just don't care enough to worry about whether they're running NTFS, ext4, HFS+. They're more interested in their data and using the computer.
     
  8. grahamperrin thread starter macrumors 601

    grahamperrin

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #8
    Don Brady (formerly Senior Software Engineer, Kernel and File Systems Teams, Apple Inc.) was the Founder of, and Principal Developer at, Tens Complement and to the best of my knowledge – beyond http://web.archive.org/web/20110903055730/http://tenscomplement.com/about-us and other published information – there was no other ZFS engineer from Apple at Tens Complement.

    The article made no mention of minorities or majorities. It was primarily recommended for anyone with an interest in the history of ZFS for Mac OS X.

    Why the exaggerated response? Do you doubt that PC-BSD began booting from ZFS around five years ago? Or that integral support for ZFS began some time before that?

    No, it's not dead. Expression of a majority view does not necessarily kill a minority view.

    Yes, that's better :)
     
  9. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #9
    Ok, let me rephrase it. For the majority of people, ZFS is not needed and for intents and purposes, will not be used.

    You may love it, and that's your right, but that doesn't mean its a viable option for the consumers and that's my point.

    For typical desktop usage, its product that never caught on and given what's occurring in the market will most likely never catch on.
     
  10. ApfelKuchen macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Location:
    Between the coasts
    #10
    One file system to rule them all...
    There's a very long list of file systems that have been used over the decades, the vast majority of which have been proprietary. Whether it's political/NIH/licensing cost, or whether it's a matter of delivering a file system tailored to the hardware/software environment it's intended to serve... Apple hardly deviated from longstanding, industry-wide practices by rolling its own.

    ZFS was never "alive" for consumers, presuming you define consumers as PC/mobile device end-users. It came tantalizingly close to becoming such, for a little while. It probably made more sense for Apple to pursue it back when they were in the server business, but that ship has also sailed.

    I guess ZFS keeps coming up in discussions here because of that brief flirtation with Apple. However, the question could just as easily be, "Why not Btrfs?" It seems to share many of ZFS' attributes. But in the end, I don't think either ZFS or Btrfs do everything that APFS will do (just as APFS may not do everything those do). Why license something you may need to modify/extend, why carry code for capabilities you don't want/need to support? That's fundamental to the concept of product differentiation.
     
  11. grahamperrin, Jun 18, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2016

    grahamperrin thread starter macrumors 601

    grahamperrin

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #11
    ZFS

    iPhone with ZFS was relatively well known. I never saw Mac OS X booted from ZFS, but I know that it was done years ago. High-level discussions in 2010 – a surprise to me, it was nice to learn of it from someone so well-respected. Then there's my wee bit of history, but I shouldn't describe that as tantalising … it was/is more of a practicality.

    APFS

    I'll have more for that topic after I test o_O fsck_apfs o_O … looking forward to hearing reading Leventhal's thoughts on that.
     
  12. grahamperrin thread starter macrumors 601

    grahamperrin

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
  13. the8thark macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #13
    If what you are saying is true, someone will release this information. So you are only delaying the inevatable. Either you don't want us to ahve the full information or you will get into trouble if you do release it. So which is it?
     
  14. grahamperrin thread starter macrumors 601

    grahamperrin

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #14
    Past

    It's not really either of those two things; not so simple. Neither should you expect anyone to publish the information.

    Present

    A few days ago for fun I tried to install a FreeBSD-based operating system, plus a desktop environment, to a 4 GB flash drive. I jokingly assumed that it would fail but it succeeded, and without me making any change to compression the whole thing used less than 1.7 GB – all ZFS.
     

Share This Page