To transfer your data to a ZFS pool would require a reformat, so yes, that wouldn't be very useful. But that's not to say that they couldn't add support as I suspect many people would find it useful enough to be able to pool their non-boot drives. I'm personally sad that Apple doesn't even support RAID 5/6 through software, instead only supporting RAID 0/1. ZFS was going to eliminate that shortcoming for me and allow me to move my mass storage to our Mac Server, sigh.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WWDC Tidbits: iDisk iPhone App, No ZFS Support in Snow Leopard Server?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good article
A 'yes', 'no' summary for wishlist on new iPhones.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ar...-s-how-did-reality-measure-up-to-users-hopes/
A 'yes', 'no' summary for wishlist on new iPhones.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ar...-s-how-did-reality-measure-up-to-users-hopes/
I don't understand. Find my iPhone alone is worth $50/year from someone like LoJack. Then add this:
-push mail, contacts, calendars w/o the prying eyes of Google
-Web Gallery
-Video Gallery
-website
-bookmark sync
-access all your media files from anywhere with AirDisk(hard drive connected to Airport Extreme)
-Back to my Mac
-4 alias email accounts
MobileMe is now well worth the price.
Agreed. At one point I thought MM was just extraneous and that Google would serve me fine. I signed up for the free trial, and the ease of use has blown me away. I'll be picking up the year subscription soon, and at least than $10/mo it's a no-brainer for me.
I read my email on the server.
Already have a website, and can host photos on it.
Don't use video.
Don't have an Airport.
Don't leave my computer awake when I'm not home (waste of power).
Already have infinite email aliases.
So that just leaves syncing of calendars, contacts, and bookmarks, which if it were designed properly I could do without paying $100 for the privilege.
Yeah, and I might even be ready to buy an Intel Mac by then. As it is, my Power Mac is only 3.5 years old, so I'll be skipping Snow Leopard.
iDisk integration will be real nice. Too bad it doesn't also integrate "back to my Mac" so I can grab the file directly from my home computer. I realize that I can set up a VPN or other service on my home Mac to assomplish this, but the integrated, "built-in" approach of back to my Mac is so much more elegant and Apple like. Not a lot of users are going to be comfortable getting the alternate ways working. Well, maybe that's something Apple can add to a future update to this new feature.
Oh, and as to the price for MobileMe. Just order it from Amazon. It's only $69 there. I buy my yearly renewal through them all the time (unless I'm also buying a new computer that year, in which case Apple will sell MobileMe bundled at the same price).
Oh, and as to the price for MobileMe. Just order it from Amazon. It's only $69 there. I buy my yearly renewal through them all the time (unless I'm also buying a new computer that year, in which case Apple will sell MobileMe bundled at the same price).
JFS2 from AIX support that and you can even shrink a filesystem. ZFS can't ...
You might want to read up on ZFS before criticizing it, especially when comparing it to an obsolete file system like JFS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
If Oracle were to can ZFS don't you think those ZFS engineers might be looking for work at Apple?
M
Mr.damien
Guest
Some things to consider.
Hello everyone,
I was reading the discussions here and no one has mentioned Btrfs. ZFS (according to wikipedia) started in 2004 by SUN and Btrfs (according to wikipedia) started in 2007 by Oracle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettabyte_File_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs
When SUN was acquired by Oracle, my thought was that ZFS development and resources would be put into Btrfs development. Btrfs looked (at least to me) superior to ZFS, but still young. Adding the knowledge and experience of the development that went into ZFS and recycling that into Btrfs may speed up its development for Oracle. Apple may be waiting for Btrfs to be released and use that given that backing of Oracle.
Just a thought.
Hello everyone,
I was reading the discussions here and no one has mentioned Btrfs. ZFS (according to wikipedia) started in 2004 by SUN and Btrfs (according to wikipedia) started in 2007 by Oracle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettabyte_File_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs
When SUN was acquired by Oracle, my thought was that ZFS development and resources would be put into Btrfs development. Btrfs looked (at least to me) superior to ZFS, but still young. Adding the knowledge and experience of the development that went into ZFS and recycling that into Btrfs may speed up its development for Oracle. Apple may be waiting for Btrfs to be released and use that given that backing of Oracle.
Just a thought.
The devs on the MacOSForge mailing list for ZFS claim to have been keeping their ZFS code for SL in-house for a long time, because it had to be integrated with the rest of the OS. And just yesterday they claimed to have rewritten the majority of the core of the OS, might that have been a good time to work on integrating all of this stuff? Or were they just wasting time?
We aren't talking about client machines storing family pictures, we're talking about the SERVER here, the one that already has a BAD reputation, and they just kneecapped it significantly.
The iDisk iPhone App is pretty cool, but it doesn't justify paying for mobileME yearly. How long until Google/GMAIL comes out with a version for this? Or dropbox?
While ZFS doesn't t support shrinking now, I think Sun had that on the "to do later" list. I think that the data integrity stuff that ZFS does that JFS doesn't do makes this harder to do. Kind of depends if shrinking off of disks that are already in use versus disks that were allocated to the pool but didn't really have data on them (which is unlikely.)
There is always going to be feature gap between two products that are being kept as exactly clones of each other. So yeah there is stuff that ZFS doesn't do. There is also a number of things that JFS2 doesn't do either. JFS2 take advantage of Flash accelerators? Raidz? Proactive data integrity scans? Any competitive network storage devices using it as the internal file system?
While Oracle hasn't annouced definative plans that seems extremely unlikely unless there is a major shift in thinking. The major difference between Btrfs and ZFS is that the former is targeted at Linux and the latter at Solaris. Since Larry Ellison said he thought Solaris was a very good implementation of Unix, it seems unlikely that Oracle is going to toss Solaris into the trash can. If Solaris is around then ZFS is most certainly going to be around. For example one of the fastest growing products Sun had was its Unified Data Servers. ZFS is a key component of the functionality of those systems.
I don't think Oracle is going to abandon Linux, but if there is a viable amount of money in Solaris support revenues (seems very likely) not going to kill off Solaris. For sure there will be some battling around killing the other off but think Oracle is large enough can do both. Especially since a huge chunk of Oracle Linux is just Red Hat Linux. ;-)
Frankly Btrfs looked alot when they announced that they wanted a ZFS clone that was compatible with the Linux/GPL constraints. Throw in Rieser being sent off to jail and even more folks jumped on bandwagon. There are a few things different ZFS but there is a fair amount of overlap. Btrfs has compatibility with ext3/ext4 in mind. It is a very, very Linux oriented file system. Moving it to another OS is very unlikely.
Similarly, if look at the Automatic Storage Mangament inside the database as another "file system", there are already multiple files systems under development at Oracle. So it doesn't have to be "just one filesystem for the whole corporation" and starve resources off of one so that the other can get ahead.
Btrfs is useless for Apple to include into the kernel because it is GPL based. No GPL stuff is going inside of the core OS at Apple. No way, no how. Similar reason why ZFS can't going into Linux is the reason it can go into MacOS X.
Gotta be Oracle...
I'm pretty bummed, but I'm sure the complete omission of ZFS is related to the Oracle acquisition. Make no mistake, this is a huge loss for everyone.
I'm pretty bummed, but I'm sure the complete omission of ZFS is related to the Oracle acquisition. Make no mistake, this is a huge loss for everyone.
ZFS exists on multiple operating systems, most prominently Solaris and OpenSolaris, but I believe FreeBSD and some Linux distros also include it. As far as on OS X, it's been in beta for quite some time (I was using it), but ultimately, I (and others) found the mac port lacking in stability. They probably just need more time. From comments on the mailing list from some of the Apple developers, it seems OS X makes some really nasty assumptions about the filesystem that just aren't true for ZFS. This necessitates kernel changes that, I'm sure aren't trivial.
No ZFS - that's dumb.
It was supposed to be in Leopard - now it won't even be in Snow Leopard.
And if the new gui is a no-show as well, is it because Apple is so focused on the iPhone?
Maybe they ran into issues and didn't want to delay the release of Snow Leopard. I mean if you look at the outrage when Apple had to delay Leopard, it would make sense that they would rather release it than wait.
I wish Apple would focus more on computers again!
It was supposed to be in Leopard - now it won't even be in Snow Leopard.
And if the new gui is a no-show as well, is it because Apple is so focused on the iPhone?
Maybe they ran into issues and didn't want to delay the release of Snow Leopard. I mean if you look at the outrage when Apple had to delay Leopard, it would make sense that they would rather release it than wait.
I wish Apple would focus more on computers again!