Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ZFS Shows Up in New Leopard Build

Posted by Hemos on

Udo Schmitz writes "As a follow-up to rumours from May this year, World of Apple has a screenshot showing Sun's Zettabyte File System in "the most recent Build of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard". Though I still wonder: If it is not meant to replace HFS+, could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?"

7 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Not a likely replacement... by qwertphobia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it is not meant to replace HFS+, could there be any other reasons to support ZFS?" Well, OSX 10.4 already supports FAT16, FAT32, and HFS, HFS+ (case sensitive and case-insensitive) and UFS. I don't see any obvuious conclusion that HFS+ is on the way out. Now if the OSX kernel AND os both support a ZFS-formatted partition as a boot partition, we might find it as an accceptable replacement, but otherwise I would think ZFS will be added for large enterprise SAN RAIDs and such.
    --
    Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
  2. ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The tech behind ZFS at least sounds very impressive, but I have to wonder how useful it is for workstation drives.

    I've never found plain-Jane posix permissions to be all that useful on anything other than the most basic of server environments.

    HFS has going for it all the fun stuff we've come to love apple for, such as transparent file customization like icons, labels, meta data, and whatnot through resource forks. I assume that these can be made to work with ZFS by making hidden files.

    What I'd really like to see is both that kind of functionality along with NTFS's really excellent ACL permission system implemented. ACL permissions are a godsend for people responsible for running a file store that's used by humans as opposed to automated processes. NTFS also has a great deal of capacity for meta-data, although not to the same level as HFS.

    NTFS is one of the few worthwhile things that's ever come out of Redmond. I wish more people would spend a bit learning from it without throwing it away simply because it's MS bloat.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? by pesc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NTFS is one of the few worthwhile things that's ever come out of Redmond. I wish more people would spend a bit learning from it without throwing it away simply because it's MS bloat.

      I wish MS would let us. NTFS is worthless if you don't run Windows. And it hinders interoperability with other systems because its implementation and disk layout is secret/patented.

      Why, do you think, there is no stable implementation that can write NTFS volumes (other than the MS implementation)?

      Contrast this with ZFS which is released under an open source license.

      --

      )9TSS
    2. Re:ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? by UtucXul · · Score: 4, Insightful
      NTFS is one of the few worthwhile things that's ever come out of Redmond. I wish more people would spend a bit learning from it without throwing it away simply because it's MS bloat.
      I think the negative opinion some people (including me) have of NTFS come not directly because it is from MS, but come from the incompatibility with everything else. I can't (reliably) read/write to it from a Mac, Linux, or Sun. That leaves only people totally in the MS camp able to use it. It may have some nice technical features, but I can't ever see them, so it is a little hard to be impressed or care about them too much.
    3. Re:ZFS vs HFS vs NTFS? by More+Trouble · · Score: 4, Insightful
      HFS has going for it all the fun stuff we've come to love apple for, such as transparent file customization like icons, labels, meta data, and whatnot through resource forks. I assume that these can be made to work with ZFS by making hidden files.

      You assume correctly, since most of that business is taken care of with Bundles. This is why it more or less works on UFS, which is already supported on Mac OS X, and has been for years. Forks & whatnot are really a legacy idea.

      What I'd really like to see is both that kind of functionality along with NTFS's really excellent ACL permission system implemented.

      That's funny! The HFS+ ACL system is Microsoft's ACL system, much to the chagrin of the Unix community.

      :w
  3. Re:What a moron by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's called compatibility.

    Wouldn't full NTFS support (or well, support for any FS more in use then ZFS today) make more sense?
  4. Re:What a moron by metamatic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wouldn't full NTFS support (or well, support for any FS more in use then ZFS today) make more sense?

    Yeah, I mean it's not like NTFS is defined and controlled by an organization renowned for its hostility to other platforms, reluctant to document things in a way that other people can implement them, and scared of interoperability, is it?

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak