Mac OS X 10.2.2 6F12

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
46,831
8,974
Mac OS X 10.2.2 6F12 was seeded to developers, according to Railhead... and MacBidouille published an excerpt from the README of Mac OS X Server 10.2.2 Build 6F12:

The 10.2.2 Server Update delivers enhancements and reliability to the following services and components: Mac OS Extended (HFS+) journaling, software RAID, NFS, ftp, Print services, Apache 2, WebMail, IP Firewall, LDAP, Open Directory Password Server, Workgroup Manager, Macintosh Manager and Security Update 2002-09-20
 

j763

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2001
660
0
Champaign, IL, USA
While the journaling is very cool for those who need it, I really think we could do with a new file system (that is, not HFS+). Apple hired the guy from BeOS a while ago, didn't they? Hopefully something in 10.3?

[edit]Switching over to Apache 2 sounds pretty bold... Am I wrong in assuming that 1.3 would provide better security? or is at least more tested?[/edit]
 

Nebrie

macrumors 6502a
Jan 5, 2002
573
65
Originally posted by j763
While the journaling is very cool for those who need it, I really think we could do with a new file system (that is, not HFS+). Apple hired the guy from BeOS a while ago, didn't they? Hopefully something in 10.3?

[edit]Switching over to Apache 2 sounds pretty bold... Am I wrong in assuming that 1.3 would provide better security? or is at least more tested?[/edit]
That would take too long. Apple needs one now so it can get XRaid out the door this year as promised.
 

rugby

macrumors regular
Feb 21, 2002
222
0
chicago
My thinking on a new FS is that it will be installed by default on 10.3, and will require 10.3.

Now, as to how APple will reformat our drives WITHOUT trashing everything remains to be seen.
I'm thinking we will have to backup, reformat, reinstall to get a new filesystem.
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,650
28
USA
Originally posted by j763
While the journaling is very cool for those who need it, I really think we could do with a new file system (that is, not HFS+). Apple hired the guy from BeOS a while ago, didn't they? Hopefully something in 10.3?

[edit]Switching over to Apache 2 sounds pretty bold... Am I wrong in assuming that 1.3 would provide better security? or is at least more tested?[/edit]
Apple can abandon HFS+ just as soon as it abandons the Classic environment.
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,706
303
Originally posted by j763
While the journaling is very cool for those who need it, I really think we could do with a new file system (that is, not HFS+). Apple hired the guy from BeOS a while ago, didn't they? Hopefully something in 10.3?

[edit]Switching over to Apache 2 sounds pretty bold... Am I wrong in assuming that 1.3 would provide better security? or is at least more tested?[/edit]
Well, you can already use "Unix File System" for (non-System) partitions in OS X. Granted, most Mac tools (noteably the FTP program I use) still truncate file names at 32 characters, which is incredibly annoying, but I haven't had any problems with 10.2 and all my docs on a Unix-formatted partition. Note that I have no idea what exactly the "Unix" file system they are using might be (there are only something like a dozen different file systems Unixes use!), but that >32-char filenames was really all I was hoping for, and that I got.

I'm not sure if you can install the system on a Unix-formatted partition. You might be able to, but I haven't tried it.

As for Apache 2, I believe Apache 2 is quite solid (2.0.43 or something like that being the current version I believe), although there are always as many opinions on such things as you can find mouths to express them. Anyone doing "serious" work on the server should have no problem installing Apache 1.3 on OS X if they are so inclined anyways.
 

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
1
Portland, OR
I can't wait...

Originally posted by PrettyMan
And JVM 1.4 ?

Ohh, I dream with it !!

Sorry.;)
...until they get that out the door. One, because they are supposedly optimizing the heck out of it. Two, because I want to be able to use assert statements.
 

Foocha

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2001
588
0
London
You don't need to use a UNIX file system to get long file names. HFS+ also supports long file names - its the applications - particuarly badly Carbonised apps that have a problem. One nicely carbonised app - the Finder - has no problem with them.

The other big problem is out of date AFP servers - like Netatalk on Linux, Novell Netware AFP services and Windows 2000 Services for Macintosh. I hope these guys get their act together soon. The only AFP server I know of that supports long file names is OS X.

This is a nasty situation since it means you can end up with long file names on your local drive which you cannot then copy to the server without going through and modifying file names and breaking depedancies in the process...

But I digress ;)
 

Foocha

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2001
588
0
London
I would use SMB sharing instead, since this supports long file names, but it does not appear to be very stable, and I keep getting bizzarre "Document not found" errors. SMB in OS X has come a long way, but I wish Apple would nail the final bugs so that it becomes a credible alternative to AFP on OS X.
 

Pitfall

macrumors newbie
Jul 18, 2002
4
0
Spain
SMB: file not found

If SMB gives you a "File not found" error, it is (probably) because of the filename of some file. For example, if you are moving a file to a Linux SMB share that has '?' or '*', it will fail. I have seen this. Changing the filename solves the problem.
There should be a more elegant way to do this, but I don't know if this issue is because of the Linux box, the SMB protocol or the Mac (all of the above? =D).
 

Foocha

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2001
588
0
London
Hi Pitfall - thanks for this and welcome to the message board.

I think you may be right, it may have something to do with file names, but I'm not clear on what the problem is, since I usually take care to come up with good file names, and I don't use any of the regular forbidden characters.

I'm now trying to access our 2000 server using Windows 2000 Services for UNIX and NFS - I managed to mess up permissions on my local hard drive in the process of changing my UID in NetInfo, but now things seem to be working fine...
 

dbakerladue

macrumors newbie
Oct 22, 2002
1
0
bad idea...

I think adding journaling to the allready bloated HFS+ FS is a bad idea. The performance hit would be huge, and on a server that connectes to primarly Macs (classic) machines where almost every file uses resourceforks this will be even greater. Though it is a good thought, I think they should keep the option to turn it on hidden, an average user doing an install would not be happy if this option was turned on , or they turned it on. Video editing and graphic design apps would suffer greatly, and unless they include ways to modify the perameters of the journaling system, IE journal size, cluster size etc. A default setup would only be usefull or a small number of users. My work with the linux Ext3, and other journaling systems it takes great care in setting up a good journaling setup. IE because different applications primarly rely on different number of files, or larger or smaller files, video editing large files-few in numbers, web design small files-LOTS in numbers. these setups would require different partition configurations for optimal performance, and having a single journaling partition configuration scheme prob would not be a good idea. Just a thought....
 

Raiden

macrumors regular
Jun 14, 2002
147
0
Hello,

could someone please tell me what journaling is? It sounds bad to me, because people are talking about performance hits.

thanks!
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,706
303
Originally posted by Raiden
Hello,

could someone please tell me what journaling is? It sounds bad to me, because people are talking about performance hits.

thanks!
Journalling is a way of doing "safe" writes to the file system. Writes are written to a "journal" file before actually being written to their final location on disk. If you have a journalling file system and are saving a 100 MB file when the power goes off, when you restart you will either have the original (unmodified) 100 MB file still on disk, or you will have the new (modified) 100 MB file on disk. In an unjournalled file system you could end up with 1/3 of the new file and 2/3 the old file.

Journalling does cause a performance hit (because writes happen essentially twice ...) And, for the "average" user, 100% recoverability from a power outage is probably not going to be an issue anyways (especially as most apps have a "recovery" method of sorts already). Journalling is really most useful for server apps that are both constantly writing out to disk and can't afford to lose what they're writing out.

If I've mussed up the gritty details of journalling, anyone can correct me ... :)
 

Pitfall

macrumors newbie
Jul 18, 2002
4
0
Spain
What journaling is....

I'm not a guru... but journaling on the filesystem is keeping a journal of all the changes made to the filesystem. Every time some process changes a file a note is made on the journal. What you have is a file that keeps track of "what" is "where" on your disk. In case your computer crashes, some startup program looks at the journal and has additional data to reconstruct your filesystem. The data and consistency loss should be less with a journal. It involves a performance hit because each access to the hard disk must go through the journaling system, so the journal is updated. There are two types of journals: some keep only a journal on the 'structure' of the hard disk, others keep a complete journal of all the data written. Of course the later involves a greater performance hit, as everything must be written twice, and your hard disk capacity suffers too.
Journaling might be a good idea for some applications, but i think it gets in the way of 'home' users.

I hope some guru will point to any mistake made here.