Slashdot Mirror


ZFS Shows Up in New Leopard Build

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?"

6 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Otherwise... by DrYak · · Score: 5, Funny
    Now that Vista is finalized,

    Because if Apple showed them before, there was a risk that Microsoft tried to announce them as future features in their soon-to-be-released perfect Windows Vista ?
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  2. Reasons to support? Servers by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I will be soon converting my Linux server to Solaris just for ZFS. Although ZFS may not terribly useful on a normal desktop, on a server, it's very powerful.... The idea of parity data actually being used actively to ensure data isn't corrupted is brilliant imho. So is the idea of on-the-fly recovery (I remember a video of some guy writing 30 megs of junk to a partition using dd, ZFS detecting it, and repairing it). *ends rant since all this can be read up about online*

    --
    In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
  3. 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
  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
  5. Re:Storeage size - speak for yourself by bar-agent · · Score: 5, Funny

    "That's no moon -- that's a file server!"

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]