ZFS Project Page at MacOSForge

[MacRumors]

A ZFS page page has appeared on MacOSForge.org, Apple's open source repository for projects. Not much information yet available, and it simple directs people to download the current ZFS implementation from Apple's Developer Connection site:

We’ll get more “stuff” up here in a bit, please stay tuned. In the meantime, all of you should be able to download the ZFS on OS X beta off the ADC site (http://developer.apple.com).

Article Link

 

[Wayfarer]

What could this mean?

 

[phillipjfry]

By God, by apple, or by the community, we will have our ZFS in Leopard.
By the time 10.5.5 is being sent out to users ZFS should at least be in full force use.

 

[Shades of Blue]

By God, by apple, or by the community, we will have our ZFS in Leopard.
By the time 10.5.5 is being sent out to users ZFS should at least be in full force use.

My words exactly.

 

[CANEHDN]

That doesn't look good on Apple for waiting on ZFS. Everyone knocked Vista for waiting for WinFS and Apple did the same thing on ZFS. I sure hope it's worth the wait.

 

[twoodcc]

By God, by apple, or by the community, we will have our ZFS in Leopard.
By the time 10.5.5 is being sent out to users ZFS should at least be in full force use.

i sure hope so

 

[PygmySurfer]

That doesn't look good on Apple for waiting on ZFS. Everyone knocked Vista for waiting for WinFS and Apple did the same thing on ZFS. I sure hope it's worth the wait.

Apple has NEVER trumpeted ZFS as a feature of Leopard, they've just quietly implemented portions of it in the background. Any ZFS "announcement" we've seen has been from someone other than Apple.

Microsoft has consistently talked about a so-called "Object File System" since the '90s, and failed to deliver. WinFS was only supposed to be a subset of this Object File System, and even it was removed from Vista, with the promise it will be available at some later date.

Also, ZFS actually exists, even if only on other platforms. WinFS is still nothing other than vaporware.

 

[UpQuark]

ZFS and macs...

That doesn't look good on Apple for waiting on ZFS. Everyone knocked Vista for waiting for WinFS and Apple did the same thing on ZFS. I sure hope it's worth the wait.

The main issue with ZFS, IMHO, is the user-side implementation. The back end on disk structure and I/O handling is fantastic and so worth it. However, it dramatically changes how one manages your files. There is no hierarchy as does HPFS and NTFS/FAT/FAT32 etc. Very different.. Geeks will get it.. pseudo-geeks and geek wanna-bees wont. Average end users, no way. Well, at least initially.

It will make the entire system much faster and much less likely to have disk corruption due to power failure etc.

Everything lives as a pool. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for details or if you like a little pain, search Sun's page.

 

[PygmySurfer]

The main issue with ZFS, IMHO, is the user-side implementation. The back end on disk structure and I/O handling is fantastic and so worth it. However, it dramatically changes how one manages your files. There is no hierarchy as does HPFS and NTFS/FAT/FAT32 etc. Very different.. Geeks will get it.. pseudo-geeks and geek wanna-bees wont. Average end users, no way. Well, at least initially.

It will make the entire system much faster and much less likely to have disk corruption due to power failure etc.

Everything lives as a pool. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for details or if you like a little pain, search Sun's page.

Not sure what you mean by no hierarchy, its really no different for end-users. The one difference would be that drives would be put into pools, but that's not going to mean much for most end-users. Most Apple users (especially the non-technical ones) are laptop users anyway, so that won't matter. It's the other features, like snapshots and checksums that're going to make a difference to these users (an updated time machine utilizing snapshots will absolutely rock).

ZFS won't really make the system faster (it actually has the potential to slow things down, due to all the checksumming), however you're right about less corruption. Even more important, it virtually eliminates silent corruption issues you might find on a failing disk.

 

[dernhelm]

Apple has NEVER trumpeted ZFS as a feature of Leopard, they've just quietly implemented portions of it in the background. Any ZFS "announcement" we've seen has been from someone other than Apple.

Exactly. Or almost so. Actually, there were strange conflicting rebuttals coming from different people in Apple after Schwartz's announcement. When the dust finally settled, Jobs did finally announce read-only ZFS.

Microsoft has consistently talked about a so-called "Object File System" since the '90s, and failed to deliver. WinFS was only supposed to be a subset of this Object File System, and even it was removed from Vista, with the promise it will be available at some later date.

Is this true? When I read the WinFS announcement from Microsoft, it wasn't just delayed - it was scuttled completely. I haven't read anything different since, but it is possible that it is still kicking around out there.

Also, ZFS actually exists, even if only on other platforms. WinFS is still nothing other than vaporware.

But they are targeting very different audiences. ZFS is a high performance RAID-Z filesystem that handles advanced features like snapshots, resource pooling, LARGE file and filesystem sizes, seamlessly. But it is still very much a tradition file system - it sees everything as a stream of bits.

WinFS was meant to be more of an Object Store - a filesystem that "knew" what was being stored in it and could optimize storage, search, backup, and retrieval for the types of data being stored. It was touting features like extensible meta-data, and SQL-like search for everything stored in the system.

Of course WinFS never materialized (probably never will) but what we all would really like is the ideas touted by Microsoft in WinFS implemented on top of something real like ZFS.

 

[UpQuark]

Not sure what you mean by no hierarchy, its really no different for end-users. The one difference would be that drives would be put into pools, but that's not going to mean much for most end-users. Most Apple users (especially the non-technical ones) are laptop users anyway, so that won't matter. It's the other features, like snapshots and checksums that're going to make a difference to these users (an updated time machine utilizing snapshots will absolutely rock).

ZFS won't really make the system faster (it actually has the potential to slow things down, due to all the checksumming), however you're right about less corruption. Even more important, it virtually eliminates silent corruption issues you might find on a failing disk.

My understanding, and I could be wrong - I often am, the ZFS allows for scheduled writes. Meaning, if an application doesn't have focus or primary focus, it's write cycles to the hard drive are queued and the primary application is given priority. This would definitely improve I/O if you are gaming /photoshoping as you listen to iTunes etc.

Hierarchical - I ment that since everything can be it's own pool of space on the HD - it doesn't matter that much if all of your files are on the root of the drive. Root of a drive is completely arbitrary.

I am excited about it though. I think the cache on HD will get larger as a result.. maybe.

 

[PygmySurfer]

Is this true? When I read the WinFS announcement from Microsoft, it wasn't just delayed - it was scuttled completely. I haven't read anything different since, but it is possible that it is still kicking around out there.

Supposedly.

WinFS was billed as one of the pillars of the "Longhorn" wave of technologies, and would ship as part of the next version of Windows. It was subsequently decided that WinFS would ship after the release of Windows Vista, but those plans were shelved in June 2006, with some of its component technologies being integrated into upcoming releases of ADO.NET and Microsoft SQL Server.[3] While it was then assumed by observers that WinFS was done as a project, in November 2006 Steve Ballmer announced that WinFS was still in development, though it was not clear how the technology was to be delivered.

(Courtesy Wikipedia)

 

[PygmySurfer]

My understanding, and I could be wrong - I often am, the ZFS allows for scheduled writes. Meaning, if an application doesn't have focus or primary focus, it's write cycles to the hard drive are queued and the primary application is given priority. This would definitely improve I/O if you are gaming /photoshoping as you listen to iTunes etc.

I hope not, that sounds like a sure-fire way to CREATE data loss. I've not heard of any such thing with regards to ZFS before, though.

Hierarchical - I ment that since everything can be it's own pool of space on the HD - it doesn't matter that much if all of your files are on the root of the drive. Root of a drive is completely arbitrary.

A pool is comprised of one or more drives. Where your files are located physically makes no difference, however, logically, it still matters where they're stored on the filesystem. Your mach_kernel still has to reside in /, you can't move it to /var, your /System folder can't be moved, etc.

The root of a drive is NOT arbitrary, however, which drive is the root drive would be - all the physical drives become one virtual drive (unless you have multiple pools). Your root drive could very well be striped across all of the physical drives if you wanted it to be.

 

[sansabelt]

Well, duh. ZFS will likely be used in the new flash sub notebooks. Multiple banks in the pool.

 

[PygmySurfer]

Well, duh. ZFS will likely be used in the new flash sub notebooks. Multiple banks in the pool.

That'd be pretty sweet. 2x64 GB SSDs or something

 

[Analog Kid]

Anybody know where the ZFS preview is on the developer site? I've been looking for it and can't find it.

I'd assumed it was available to paid members only, but the page linked above suggests everyone can get to it.

 

[samh004]

I hope a simple guide goes up on it's use soon, I installed it and am having a hard time doing anything with it. No GUI makes me sad

Anybody know where the ZFS preview is on the developer site? I've been looking for it and can't find it.

I'd assumed it was available to paid members only, but the page linked above suggests everyone can get to it.

Sign in (as an online member or above) and go to the software downloads area. Not the pre-release software. There will be some categories down the left, in the middle is Mac OS X, you'll find the ZFS preview in there.

 

[zorinlynx]

The best use for ZFS will be for Mac Pro users who want a large redundant store of data without wasting *half* your space like you need to with mirroring.

Right now you can put three additional 1TB hard drives into a Mac Pro and create a fully redundant 2TB RAIDZ pool, and lose 1/3rd the space. ZFS and RAIDZ are incredibly fast, even faster than many hardware RAID solutions. I wouldn't be surprised if RAIDZ smacks down even the RAID card Apple is selling for the Mac Pro!

Once ZFS is stabilized and officially released, I plan to take advantage of this. A system of cron jobs to take hourly snapshots makes it even more useful.

 

[ChrisA]

Anybody know where the ZFS preview is on the developer site? I've been looking for it and can't find it.

I'd assumed it was available to paid members only, but the page linked above suggests everyone can get to it.

The best way to learn about ZFS is to use it. If you have VMware Fusion then download a copy of Solaris 10 (It's free) and run Solaris inside a VM and try out ZFS first hand. Solaris runs well inside Fusion if you have 2GB on a dual core Intel Mac.

What I find is that Sun's interface is not very good and while usable by much of Sun's user base it would be a unworkable on a Mac. This is why Im following ZFS on and mac. I really can't wait to see how Apple handles the user interface issue. Let's hope they think of something new

 

[Wild-Bill]

I think Apple needs to work on Leopard's bugs/shortcomings before even thinking about ZFS. Sure, a revision 0 of a new operating system will have its share of bugs..... but they had another 5+ months to work on it, and apparently didn't.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

Anybody know where the ZFS preview is on the developer site? I've been looking for it and can't find it.

I'd assumed it was available to paid members only, but the page linked above suggests everyone can get to it.

I think you do need to be an ADC member, but a basic (free) account will work. I can only find it by logging in, then click on Downloads, then in the right hand nav click "Mac OS X". It's currently the fourth item on that list and is titled "ZFS Beta Seed v1.1".

I've been running it for a little while now and have set up a 1.25TB RAID-Z pool on a group of 6 250GB external firewire drives (how cool is that?!?). It seems pretty solid, but it's CLI tools only at the moment and it does have some problems. But no corruption or anything like that (yet)... Things I've noticed are:

1. The trash can won't empty on my ZFS pool.
2. Copying/writing bundles to my ZFS pool seems to have some issues, at least over AFP. Individual folders/files works just fine.
3. My ZFS pool shows in the finder as a disk image (icon), not as physical or external disks like my other drives do. As a result, Time Machine refuses to see it or back it up. (There's a few things I'd like to have it backup from the pool to protect against accidental deletion or overwrite.)

 

[MacAodh]

so can i get this straight for a sec, is this an apple supported effort (on macforge) or is it community set-up and supported?

Just wondering what the chances of seeing this anytime soon are

 

[samh004]

The apple effort is the official seed on the developer site, the page on macforge isn't run by Apple, but doesn't add any details to it anyway. I'd imagine it might in the future.

 

[SeanMcg]

Lawsuit against Sun hindering Apple?

This page from Sun could explain why Apple can't package ZFS with Leopard, yet can continue to post to the open-source community. I'm not a lawyer, but on its surface it would be reasonable to assume that the patent lawsuit either prevents Sun from licensing ZFS, or makes it impractical for Apple to license ZFS from Sun at this point. Meanwhile, the open-source community can use it, play with it and post improvements and feedback for Leopard.

Anyone more legally inclined, please contribute.

UPDATE - This blog from Johnathan Schwartz indicates that Sun isn't asking any money from Apple. However, I would still like someone to comment on if this lawsuit is causing a delay in Apple's full implementation in OS X.

 

[Peace]

This page from Sun could explain why Apple can't package ZFS with Leopard, yet can continue to post to the open-source community. I'm not a lawyer, but on its surface it would be reasonable to assume that the patent lawsuit either prevents Sun from licensing ZFS, or makes it impractical for Apple to license ZFS from Sun at this point. Meanwhile, the open-source community can use it, play with it and post improvements and feedback for Leopard.

Anyone more legally inclined, please contribute.

UPDATE - This blog from Johnathan Schwartz indicates that Sun isn't asking any money from Apple. However, I would still like someone to comment on if this lawsuit is causing a delay in Apple's full implementation in OS X.

NetAPPS's lawsuit is a trolling type suit.They didn't expect SUN to counter-sue.Sun want's to keep ZFS in the GPL whereas NetAPPS want's it to stay proprietary and charge SUN.There is no suit against Apple from either company.Apple has licensed ZFS using the GPL.If anything came of this Apple would probably become a friend of the court in favor of SUN.

And.no.This superfluous lawsuit is not keeping Apple from using ZFS.It's already in Leopard as read-only.you just don't realize it.