Submitted by More evidence: “Mac OS X Leopard (Build 9a321) features support for ZFS. The rumors were true, you can create disk images with a ZFS filesystem, well at least in theory, because Build 9a321 is far away from being stable. The DiskUtility itself crashes again and again. Trying to create an actual ZFS image produces kernel panics. There is no pool support to create stripes, mirrors or even RaidZ in DiskUtility yet.
It seems that all the other rumor sites stopped right there, which is why we had to set up this website to show you how well ZFS is already implemented. We show you what works and what doesn’t. After reading you will know what the deal is, with ZFS and the upcoming Mac OS.”
ZFS on Mac OS X 10.5: a Closer Look
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
ZFS seems like a pretty cool buzzword-filled file system, and everyone seems excited that Mac OS X Leopard will include support for it. But what are the practical benefits of this file system?
The main reason I ask is I wonder if it should be ported to Haiku, or if other file systems would be more useful first.
Any information or opinions on this would be appreciated.
Ever heard of this wonderful site called Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfs
“Ever heard of this wonderful site called Wikipedia?”
Not very wonderful, but usually useful.
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/
Well, I’m using in at work, under Solaris. And I must say it’s amazing. I’m really happy that ZFS is gaining momentum in open (Solaris, FreeBSD) and closed (Darwin) systems. It’s really nice piece of clever engineering and pretty solid rethinking of how storage is managed. Other filesystem still work with 30 year old assumptions.
How long do you suppose until it reaches on Linux?
It’s my understanding that it won’t reach Linux in the kernel anyway due to license issues. Some google summer of code project was trying to get it running in Linux via FUSE.
Yet another link. Pretty inspiring stuff.
http://mtrr.org/blog/?p=83
“Yet another link. Pretty inspiring stuff.
http://mtrr.org/blog/?p=83“
Now that is what I was looking for. Thank you very much.
I already checked Wikipedia and found its technical high-level description lacking in practical information. Hence my question. The above link is great though.
I’m wondering too if ZFS makes that much sense for a desktop environment where daily performance matters most and most people don’t have more than 2 hard drives or that concerned about 99.99999999999999% reliability.
I *REALLY* hope Apples support for ZFS is good. This FS is a wet dream
It looked/sounded sweet when it first came out but I couldn’t really mess with it without runing Solaris, which I haven’t much desire to do at the moment. I will definitely be using it in 10.5 when it comes out!
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 95; PalmSource; Blazer 3.0) 16;160×160
Hi all,
Anyone knows if the ZFS implementation in MAC OS X is tracking the latest freebsd efforts in porting ZFS or if apple is doing it on their own?
Cheers
<rant>
most hype about max OS X is how it allows a user to be ignorant of his/her system without being vulnerable to typical “diseases” that infects other ignorant users from another popular OS .. why would this typical mac user be exited about a file system? ..would there be this kind of hype if it was ported/included in linux? why/why not? i would expect this kind of this will excite most linux users above others.
how many articles have we seen about ZFS here ..digg.com is worse ..in any given day there will be at least 10+ news/blogs about about how “cool” this file system.
Its getting boring ..
</rant>
why would this typical mac user be exited about a file system?
The typical Mac user is probably not going to be too concerned about what FS they are using. As long as it is more stable, faster or whatever, the details are usually unimportant to them.
…but this is OSAlert. I am 99% sure that the people that come here–MacOS users or not–do care about these kinds of details and hence, they are posted.
would there be this kind of hype if it was ported/included in linux? why/why not? i would expect this kind of this will excite most linux users above others.
Of course it would receive some “hype”. I hope you’re not implying that non-GNU/Linux users are ignorant!
If these articles bore you, just don’t read them! If you don’t care about things like ZFS, just ignore it! For the rest of us that do, information like this is welcome.
i just dont understand why there is a post about ZFS being ported on a mac almost everyday ..i am not anti-apple if that came across in my previous post ..i would have said the same thing if there were the same amount of posts/reposts about ZFS on linux, windows, BSD or any other system ..the amount of frequency is what bugs me ..but your right, i should just stay clear of them if they bug me ..
no, i wasnt impying that GNU/linux are ignorant ..linux users being picky about file systems(ext2/ext3, raiser3/4 …,…) i would have thought this would have got more press if it was being ported to linux than on a macs.
On a forum somewhere, somebody mentioned this file system on linux and someone else said “no, no another file system” and that was the end of the discussion ..this, i just dont understand
The typical Mac user is probably not going to be too concerned about what FS they are using.
First of all OS X is used on the server side as well. Admittedly not a lot, but this is the type of feature which could lead to them taking a larger chunk of that market, which is what I believe their plan is. So as such ZFS is aimed more at the sysadmin than the DTP guy. I’m sure this news makes xserve and xraid a little more interesting for many admins considering a hardware upgrade in the not too distant future.
Secondly normal users will care about the features a new filesystem can offer them. For example faster and easier snapshots and the ability to create one large file system out of several smaller disks or partitions. Sure this can be (and has been) done without ZFS, but having ZFS makes it easier for apple to implement and improves the performance of these solutions
Then stop reading those articles. You are free to do so.
The importance on ZFS on OSX lies in the attention OSX gets from the Windows world. There is still a OS war going on between Windows on one hand and unix on the other. OSX pretty much covers the client side, Linux as well but in a lesser degree but primely the server side. My point is; for Unix to remain strong OSX is a major factor, whether you like it or not.
Edited 2006-12-23 09:39
>for Unix to remain strong OSX is a major factor, whether you like it or not.
Have a look at UNIX and than have a look at MacOS. UNIX is K.I.S.S., you don’t see this within MacOS, KDE or Gnome. I do like Apple for their development through the 70s/80s and the beginning 90s, but not for the nonsense about MacOS X.
Yet OS X is by far Apple’s most successful software product. Hmm, why could that be? Maybe because it’s the most solid OS they ever delivered, and maybe because it’s the most user friendly unix desktop ever seen?
User friendly is in the eye of the beholder, though. For those who know and appreciate unix systems, editing a bunch of simple config files may be most productive. For the typical Mac/Windows user, on the other hand, that’s really not an option at all.
Having said that, I must admit that when OS X was released, I wished they had stayed with the GUI theme from Rhapsody. Maybe because I grew up with System 7, I dunno.
http://toastytech.com/guis/rhap.html
There is no war anymore – it’s over. And OS X is not really seen as a shining representative of UNIX – by no means. It gets down to two things
1. SUN’s fabulous marketing machine considering zfs (and the response of the fanboys)
2. The terrible state the Mac filesystem is in – take anything, it can only get better.
In daily life I wouldn’t seriously consider zfs – simply because it has a very short history. In the case of filesystems this can be quite dangerous and difficult to heal if something goes wrong. Yes, yes, there is “self-healing” (another buzz word) – funnily enough the forums of zfs are full of smaller and bigger problems (which is normal – zfs cannot be a rock solid filesystem simply because it’s very young in comparison to ext2/3 or ufs).
So do you evaluate all features that you use with operating systems and applications based on maturity level? While ZFS is new compared to everything else, it works!
Read my OSAlert article on Solaris 10 6/06, as far as I am concerned the buzz is justified. I am putting systems into production using ZFS because it gives me flexibility that UFS doesn’t. The only real show stopper I am aware of with ZFS is using it with SAN devices (which is one of the things I am looking at doing rather than using Veritas Volume Manager ($$$$)).
And while you can dismiss my comment as a “fanboi response”, I don’t see the point in not using a feature that makes life easier for a system administrator. I am glad Apple decided to put ZFS to use with OS X. What I could see Apple do is wrap the ZFS commands around a cool and easy to use GUI which would make it even sweeter!
Do I understand you correctly, that when Unix/Linux does have a decent gui it becomes some kind of ‘bloated’!?
In my opinion Unix without gui is much like a car without coach-work, which is not very attractive to the masses, the people who actually use the computers.
I believe that many unix-administrators fear the gui, because unix will become manageable on a common level, do I have a point?
Edited 2006-12-23 10:54
No, unix is kind of bloated when you have swooshing windows and bubbly scrollbars
I would like to know what your car looks like, something like a Skoda?
It is high time Mac OS X switched to OpenSolaris kernel. Next big news from OS X could be this, who knows!
http://osgeek.blogspot.com