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

No ZFS Support in Leopard?

GekkePrutser said:
I know, however I read that ZFS would incorporate some changes that are not compatible with HFS+, like mandatory case-sensitivity. That could break some applications, the same way that UFS currently does. It could also break software doing direct disk access such as backup software. It would in any case require some good testing. Only showing it to the world on release day would in my opinion be a cause for major problems.
Click to expand...
It would only break lame applications, and those developers better fix them. I already use HFSX+ and the only applications I have trouble with are Photoshop and Warcraft 3, I've solved both by making an HFS+ image which I've installed them into instead.

It's not like USING THE ****ING SAME CASE ON YOUR FILES NAMES isn't as much of a challange as switching CPU archs all the ****ing time ;/, or Carbon/Cocoa/.. for that matter.

How hard can it be to not try to read War3.mpq or whatever when the files name are war3.mpq!?! Not very.
 
the lack of anything being mentioned about ZFS doesn't mean there won't be support for it, but i think it does mean that it won't be bootable. shame really. but who knows steve only showed us '10' of the new features so there are 290 left out there. who knows, it could be one of 'em.
 
aliquis- said:
You can't share HFS+ partitions between OS revisions? Only huge advantage for ZFS would be in their serversystems.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, no, the HFS hasn't been changed much AFAIK.

I was meaning that the user partitions really can encompass everything a user needs data and application wise. This then (using ZFS) could be dynamically mirrored/backed up to online servers etc.

There is no need to dynamically backup the actual OS. The user folders and OS are reasonably distinct. Also, this allows a clean separation of aboot HFS+ and user ZFS file system.
 
Will_reed said:
I to think that ZFS will end up an optional choice in 10.5 on release and I think maybe they just decided not to show it for what ever reason they had.
Click to expand...

I hope this is the case. But making it bootable (which IIRC someone claimed was working a little while back, on Solaris machines at least) and making it the default FS would have leapt Apple back into the upper tier technology-wise.

Unfortunately, it's clear they aren't going to do that - and the reason is the gaming initiative. ZFS is the kind of file system gamers would drool over - RAID-Z built in, high performance, etc, etc. If Steve-O is going to drag game company execs on stage to discuss how they're going to support the mac, and the mac would have an advantage like ZFS, THAT was the time to talk about it. Whether or not the CEO of Sun "stole his thunder". He'd could punish that nitwit later.

I'm sooooo bummed about this. But at least it should be an optional FS, even if we're still stuck with HFS+ for Time Machine.
 
aliquis- said:
It would only break lame applications, and those developers better fix them. I already use HFSX+ and the only applications I have trouble with are Photoshop and Warcraft 3, I've solved both by making an HFS+ image which I've installed them into instead.

It's not like USING THE ****ING SAME CASE ON YOUR FILES NAMES isn't as much of a challange as switching CPU archs all the ****ing time ;/, or Carbon/Cocoa/.. for that matter.

How hard can it be to not try to read War3.mpq or whatever when the files name are war3.mpq!?! Not very.
Click to expand...

No, but Photoshop not working is a big deal for a lot of people. If ZFS would become the main filesystem in OS X, a lot of people would run into this. Currently only the people who choose UFS would get this problem and there's not a lot of people using it.

My point was just: Apple can't introduce ZFS at the last minute, especially since some of these developers need time to fix their stuff. Photoshop not running on Leopard would be really bad press.

I'm not arguing that these apps should work in case-sensitive in the first place. They should, and Adobe's devs are stupid for not fixing this known issue for so long.

I'm just saying that I won't expect ZFS to be added last-minute just because of this kind of thing. You can't expect a whole new filesystem to be added without any kind of beta testing. Especially as the default.

PS: I would love to see ZFS as much as anyone, and I'm really disappointed that it won't be but I just don't see it happen now. Hope I'm wrong!
 
boobooq88 said:
Creating a fully 64 bit OS is not a minimal tweak fyi ;)
Click to expand...

Granted. But it's meaningless for people with:
Core Duo, G3 (if it's supported at all), G4, and Pentium M (assuming, as some do, that Apple TV will eventually evolve into a Mac Mini replacement) based Macs.

And its benefits are debatable for people with:
G5, Core 2 Duo, Xeon based Macs with 4 GB or less of memory.
 
Much Ado said:
Don't be upset. We English have learned to live off this sort of dismay :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the uplifting sentiments.... :D

Southernboy said:
Always look on the bright side of life :D

What was the guy from Sun talking about? I'd love to hear his response.
Click to expand...

The guy from Sun was it's CEO and his statement (although I can't quote it verbatim) was that Steve was going to announce at WWDC that ZFS was going to be "the" file system for Leopard.

How he could get that so wrong is a little baffling, but apparently he and Steve are not on the same page at all...
 
I can't see ZFS working as osX bootable, if i'm using 10 different HD's linked together i don't want my system to boot from that and neither does Apple. ZFS is perfect for data storage and it will probably be an option for additional non-bootable HD's.
 
boobooq88 said:
Another find I found interesting... Leopard not BSD based? same link as above
Click to expand...

Mac OS X is partially derived from FreeBSD.

FreeBSD was one of the open source continuations of Berkeley's BSD 4.4.

After a series of lawsuits, it had been clarified back in 1994 that Berkeley's BSD was, in fact, a legatimite distribution of UNIX, despite its being distributed for free without royalty.

So its derivatives, ultimately leading up to Mac OS X, inherited that legacy. Apple's effort to gain UNIX certification likely didn't involve modifying very much code at all, but probably was mostly a matter of paying somebody in authority to do a cursory audit of the code and then sign off on the legal right to use the trademark.
 
Macrumors said:
...Brian Croll, senior director of product marketing for the Mac OS, has said that "ZFS is not happening" when questioned about ZFS's inclusion in Leopard.
Click to expand...

This is just a mind-blower :mad: What was "Top Secret Features" suppose to be? Automater? A dumb reflective Dock with a trapezoidal background? BootCamp built-in rather than having to download and install it? Dashboard? WTF? Why is Dashboard a "Top Secret Feature"? I have Dashboard in Tiger already. I mean, come on, Steve Jobs! Where the @%#$ is ZFS? Why do we still have the ugly street-light-window-buttons and bubbly-blue 3D-want-a-b scroll bars? :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
MacVault said:
Dashboard? WTF? Why is Dashboard a "Top Secret Feature"? I have Dashboard in Tiger already.
Click to expand...
But, but, but.... there's a new Movie Times widget!!!

Seriously though, you know when Jobs is scraping the bottom of the barrel when one of the ten new features of Leopard is a bloody dashboard widget. I was at least hoping for incremental improvements in the dashboard itself, but I guess not. Instead we get a useless shilling of fandango.com.
 
I'll be rather miffed if there turns out to be no ZFS support at all in Leopard.

As someone who has loads and loads of data spread around various physical drives like a mad person's s**t ZFS would be an absolute lifesaver :eek:
 
Maybe Time Machine uses ZFS?
I remember reading they can't boot off it but that wouldn't be a concern if it was only external storage.
 
It's possible that it's not default, however it may still show up in Leopard Server.
 
What that 'Sun guy'

See/Hear what Jonathan actually said right here:

http://zdnet.com.com/1606-2_2-6189050.html

verbatim: '..this week you'll see thatApple is announcing at their WWDC that ZFS has become the filesystem in Mac OS X'

Afterwards fellow board member Marc Hamilton offered that Jonathan might have meant to have said/been trying to imply that this is what he'd want to see.

He was in the middle of talking about Thumper. If you don't have $50K spare you could try to win one and try out a 128 bit filesystem for yourself.:)
 
GregA said:
Ahhh, no, the HFS hasn't been changed much AFAIK.

I was meaning that the user partitions really can encompass everything a user needs data and application wise. This then (using ZFS) could be dynamically mirrored/backed up to online servers etc.

There is no need to dynamically backup the actual OS. The user folders and OS are reasonably distinct. Also, this allows a clean separation of aboot HFS+ and user ZFS file system.
Click to expand...
I don't see why you can't just use two partitions with HFS+, or only ZFS for that matter.
 
GekkePrutser said:
No, but Photoshop not working is a big deal for a lot of people. If ZFS would become the main filesystem in OS X, a lot of people would run into this. Currently only the people who choose UFS would get this problem and there's not a lot of people using it.

I'm just saying that I won't expect ZFS to be added last-minute just because of this kind of thing. You can't expect a whole new filesystem to be added without any kind of beta testing. Especially as the default.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's an issue in Photoshop CS 3 longer, I can understand that it was in CS 2 because back then there was no case sensetive HFS+, right? But the problem was still there in the CS 3 beta which is kind of lame since OS X already had HFSX+ as an alternative in the installer. And as I said all they need to know is to call files by their actually name, how hard can it be? Also I don't see how issues with one or two apps is a reason to stop the switching over to another filesystem. Let the developers of those applications fix them and be done with it.

I get it and I choosed HFSX+ (Case-sensetive, journaled, HFS), sounded like the most reasonable choice, I didn't knew it would lead to issues.

It's not like Apple wouldn't have told Adobe it would become a problem...
 
No ZFS? WTF!

At first I assumed "TFTFF" = "They Fixed The $#^%ing Finder"
But could it be more like = "They $#^%ed The $#^%ing Finder"???
Or... "They $#^%ed The $#^%ing Filesystem"... by not switching to ZFS???

:mad: WWDC = World Wide Disappointment Conference :mad:

What the $#^% is the story with ZFS? I mean HFS is what... 20 years old now? WTF is Apple thinking?! HFS is a pain in the --- , especially when it comes to sharing files with other platforms. Leopard = World's Most Advanced Operating System... but with a twist... it comes with an ancient and very deficient filesystem. WTF?!

WTF?! :mad: I just watched the keynote stream... Steve Jobs did his "One More Thing" gig and could just feel the crowd expecting him to announce ZFS in Leopard. No, instead it's all about Safari on Windows. Then he did his "One Last Thing" gig ... of course that was about the iPhone.

WTF?! :mad:
 
Bonte said:
I can't see ZFS working as osX bootable, if i'm using 10 different HD's linked together i don't want my system to boot from that and neither does Apple. ZFS is perfect for data storage and it will probably be an option for additional non-bootable HD's.
Click to expand...
Why not? It's not like you would strip them? Or would you?

Also noone forces you to use all functionallity just because it exists.
 
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