Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New Snow Leopard Build (10A261) Seeded to Developers

frankiec said:
Then why are you using HFS+ instead of HFS? I remember bottom-dwellers said that journaling was only for the enterprise before HFS+ was widespread.

You've hit a wall that you can't mentally jump. Answer the question. Why are you using HFS+ instead of HFS?
Click to expand...

Okay, you are spinning this argument and asking me why I use HFS+ instead of HFS now, obviously because you have no argument.

HFS+ uses smaller block sizes, compared to UFS, better defragging etc.

Nothing that affects the consumer which is what we are arguing.

And stop editing your posts once you post.

Really, just give up unless you are going to answer your original debate, "the consumer will benefit most from ZFS".
 
frankiec said:
Who told you ZFS wasn't for everyone, not just the enterprise? Who told you that? I don't have to disprove your own myth in your head.

AGAIN, for example, then why are you using HFS+j instead of HFS? I remember bottom-dwellers saying that journaling filesystems weren't for consumers before HFS+j was widespread.

You've hit a wall that you can't mentally jump. Answer the question. Why are you using HFS+ instead of HFS?
Click to expand...

The reason why HFS+ is being used instead of HFS is because it became the new standard. Just because something becomes the new standard, does not mean that every user benefits from all the advantages.

Kilamite's main point is that all the main reasons that ZFS is good for will not benefit the everyday consumer. Yes, it will benefit pro users. Yes, it will become the new standard in the next couple of years, but that does not mean my mom will necessarily benefit from it.

frankiec said:
Anymore trolling can be sent to my private mailbox. Thanks, kid. It's time for bed, you're in over your head.
Click to expand...

It looks like you're the one acting like a kid.
 
frankiec said:
Alot of ZFS advancements are already used in the enterprise because companies can afford VxFS and other expensive solutions. ZFS trickles down these advancements to the consumer.
Click to expand...

You just proved Kilamite's point right there. The administrators for huge organizations will benefit from ZFS, but individual consumers will not.
 
frankiec said:
I told you to send anymore trolling to my mailbox. If you read my posts you would've read the links and became educated.

Alot of ZFS advancements are already used in the enterprise because companies can afford VxFS and other expensive solutions. ZFS trickles down these advancements to the consumer.

You're in over your head,
it's time for bed.
Click to expand...

ZFS will trickle down into consumer machines, yes. That will happen, most likely. But that has nothing to do with the consumer having any benefit at all from ZFS.

Seriously - you are diverting this argument at every response - you have never answered me why consumers would benefit from ZFS (and compatibility for the "future" doesn't count).
 
frankiec said:
Uh huh, so when we're all using it for the next 20 years you can feel real smug.
Click to expand...

I never said it wouldn't be used. I know that it will be used. RAID systems are great, but I don't benefit from it. Normal consumers don't use RAIDs, pro users and businesses do.

frankiec said:
Well, perhaps most of us will. It might not make it to Georgia until 20 years after that.
Click to expand...

I love how you say that everyone else is trolling when you're the one making the childish remarks.
 
frankiec said:
I'm not going to hand-hold you. Here's my post from page 8. Go discover some things for yourself. This post will help you:
Click to expand...

Uh huh. And all you did was say "it's the best choice" and it is the best choice for professionals not consumers.

And FAT32 is a bad example because that is restricted to a 4GB file size limit, so NTFS is a huge benefit to the consumer if they have files (movies) that are over 4GB's. But HFS+ to ZFS, there is no huge benefit like that.

I'm not arguing that ZFS isn't going to benefit professionals - it will hugely.

We're arguing what is best and what will benefit the consumer since you brought that up.

You are having a great deal of trouble arguing your topic and are throwing out irrelevant examples and rubbish talk to try and get out of your statement, "the consumers will benefit most from ZFS".
 
frankiec said:
The enterprise already have most of ZFS advancements in other more expensive solutions -- they're not benefiting as much compared to when these advancements are in mass use by consumers.
Click to expand...


You're still missing the point of what everybody is saying.

Even if the professionals already experienced the most benefits from ZFS technologies, it does not mean that the consumers will get the most benefits because those consumers already are experiencing those benefits in another way. They do not care or know about the advanced method of checksumming as long as their time machine works. If Apple maintain the way Time machine works from the consumer's point of view currently in HFS+ and those views do not change after ZFS change, how it is a benefit for the consumers? It is a massive benefit for Apple and professionals because the checksum works in their favor, they know HOW TO EXPLOIT THOSE FEATURES therefore they are getting the MOST benefit. The consumers are not going to the terminal and start messing with the ZFS commands. They won't be using the ZFS to the most benefits, therefore they are still not getting the MOST benefits.

(yes i know data integrity isn't the only major benefit for ZFS)

Your perspective on ZFS change defines your meaning of benefits for the consumers. The consumer's prespective? Not the most benefit, period.

The truth is only relative to you and is different from everybody's point of view.
 
MikhailT said:
You're still missing the point of what everybody is saying.

Even if the professionals already experienced the most benefits from ZFS technologies, it does not mean that the consumers will get the most benefits because those consumers already are experiencing those benefits in another way. They do not care or know about the advanced method of checksumming as long as their time machine works. If Apple maintain the way Time machine works from the consumer's point of view currently in HFS+ and those views do not change after ZFS change, how it is a benefit for the consumers? It is a massive benefit for Apple and professionals because the checksum works in their favor, they know HOW TO EXPLOIT THOSE FEATURES therefore they are getting the MOST benefit. The consumers are not going to the terminal and start messing with the ZFS commands. They won't be using the ZFS to the most benefits, therefore they are still not getting the MOST benefits.

(yes i know data integrity isn't the only major benefit for ZFS)

Your perspective on ZFS change defines your meaning of benefits for the consumers. The consumer's prespective? Not the most benefit, period.

The truth is only relative to you and is different from everybody's point of view.
Click to expand...

Just some observations to ad to the debate of ZFS' use to the consumer.

I think consumers will benefit in the following ways:
1.) faster I/O performance
2.) better data integrity
3.) smaller and more efficient use of snapshots / backups

***and possibly*** easier time networking between multiple computers in the house. I find my experience with opensolaris to be a bit more simple with the server and 2 laptops, just my opinion though.

It is obvious the pro user and it expert gets more out of zfs than a consumer, but that doesn't mean once zfs is fully integrated with the system that consumers wouldn't experience benefits even if they didn't know that they were (such as data integrity and faster I/O peformance). Apple won't market a file system to the average user... its dumb to get that technical. Apple just has to say they have an underlying feature that is better and just works compared to Microsoft in a particular market, like the corporate iPhone market and universities where Sun opensource already reins!
 
MShock said:
I think consumers will benefit in the following ways:
1.) faster I/O performance
2.) better data integrity
3.) smaller and more efficient use of snapshots / backups
Click to expand...
How are we so sure that HFS+ is limiting current disk drive I/O performance? I would like to know how better data integrity is going to help when most Macs only have one disk drive in them, with no space for more than one. Most file systems now can recognize when there are bad sectors and work around that. I do agree on the snapshot bit. It makes no sense for Time Machine to copy a whole file again when only certain parts of it changed.
 
In reference to ZFS. The major differences the end user would see would be a very robust system and much faster read/writes. No matter how fast the hard drive is physically. Couple that with a smaller O/S footprint and you wind up with a very fast O/S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back