Slashdot Mirror
ZFS Confirmed In Mac OS X Server Snow Leopard
number655321 writes "Apple has confirmed the inclusion of ZFS in the forthcoming OS X Server Snow Leopard. From Apple's site: 'For business-critical server deployments, Snow Leopard Server adds read and write support for the high-performance, 128-bit ZFS file system, which includes advanced features such as storage pooling, data redundancy, automatic error correction, dynamic volume expansion, and snapshots.' CTO of Storage Technologies at Sun Microsystems, Jeff Bonwick, is hosting a discussion on his blog. What does this mean for the 'client' version of OS X Snow Leopard?"
If Apple really wants to start calling OS X a "modern" operating system, they are going to have to start supporting pluggable filesystems. SOON! Limiting to one or two (and, other than ZFS, not a particularly good-performing or attractive one or two), is extremely limiting. In fact, it is asinine.
Okay, then, would the phrase "out of the box" clarify matters for you?
Perhaps I could have made this clearer, but from the context I thought it was obvious that I was referring to native, out-of-the-box support for pluggable filesystems. NOT some kind of add-on you can get later and have to compile yourself, then tweak a bit before you can even get it to work (which is what all the examples here have stated they require).
but you are. And no, I am not saying that Apple should include the filesystems themselves (though it would not bother me if they did).
First, if you have to INSTALL SOMETHING (even a small something) other than the filesystem itself, BEFORE other filesystems can be used, then by definition it is not "out of the box"! Whether you regard that as a small point or not, it is still a point, and it makes a difference to a lot of people.
Second, according to TFA, ZFS will be provided for the server product, not for plain off-the-shelf, out-of-the-box Mac OS X. And that was part of my point.
Third, MacPorts (like the other examples you gave) is yet another outside-party add-on; it is NOT an "out-of-the-box" feature of OS X!
And fourth, I have an excellent grasp of what "pluggable" means. That has no bearing whatever on whether it is supported out-of-the-box, versus a self-compiled add-on or the like!!!
Maybe this is where you have been misunderstanding: you have been saying that OS X has native support for pluggable filesystems. What I have been saying is "NO, it does not... until you install some add-on software". Sure, once you install one or more of those add-ons, then it does. But saying that is "native, out-of-the-box" support for pluggable filesystems is like saying that Windows has "native, out-of-the-box support for solving mathematical integrals". It simply doesn't. You can get "add-ons" -- additional software -- that does. Even for free. But that is NOT the same as "native, out-of-the-box support."
If that does not clear things up for you, then I doubt anything will. But I know that nobody where I work would have any trouble understanding this.
Well, if what you say in the last few paragraphs is correct, then I was simply wrong, in the case of at least one good example. I can admit that, when someone shows me that is indeed the case.
But I would still like to state, for the (how-manyeth?) time, that we are still not communicating about the rest of this.
While my first post did indeed state "pluggable filesystems", I have explained -- many times now -- that what I MEANT was "out of the box" functionality, WITHOUT third-party add-ons or separately compiled kernel extensions. I even explained why that is important to some people. So, I know what MacPorts is... I use it myself. But because of the restriction I mentioned, something that needs MacPorts disqualifies itself.
I did NOT state that what third parties do equates to what Mac does itself. I claimed the opposite! My assertion was (for this argument) that the need for third-party tools disqualified a filesystem from my (so far practically nonexistant) list. I have stated that so many times in different ways now that I despair of you ever understanding the point. Others who have read this did not have that trouble, so I do not know where the misunderstanding could lie.
And finally, I have also stated that ease of use for an experienced user is not the real issue. The issue is whether mom-and-pop will bother to do all that just to get a filesystem running. And the answer, in the case of MOST end-users, is no.
For someone who keeps claiming that I am ignoring what the other is saying, you have been doing a lot of ignoring.
In any case, I am completely done with this discussion. I am now convinced that there ARE "ready to go" filesystems out there... at least one anyway. But as for the rest of this "discussion", absolutely no progress has been made for at least three go-rounds now.