ZFS- Stick a fork in it. It's dead (for Apple)

hmurchisonhmurchison
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs





The ZFS project has been discontinued. The mailing list and repository will also be removed shortly.





Ouch



However this is promising



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gruber


The flip side is that I?ve heard that Apple?s file systems team is full steam ahead on their own next-generation file system. And, perhaps not coincidentally, they?re hiring.



Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Too bad. Really looked like a nice file system.
  • Reply 2 of 6
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs





    The ZFS project has been discontinued. The mailing list and repository will also be removed shortly.





    Ouch



    However this is promising



    The flip side being; no one knows what file system will be developed, what features it'll have or when it'll be available.



    It's a shame, ZFS looked like nice technology.
  • Reply 3 of 6
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    I think 10.7 will come with Apple's nextgen fs.



    I think they need to take some features from ZFS and incorporate them into the nextgen fs.

    I'd like to see good fs principal like "copy on write", variable block size and the ability to deal smartly with saving only delta changes.



    I'd like Apple to go further than ZFS in the area of storing metadata, attributes and other pieces of data along with the file.
  • Reply 4 of 6
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    I think 10.7 will come with Apple's nextgen fs.



    I think they need to take some features from ZFS and incorporate them into the nextgen fs.

    I'd like to see good fs principal like "copy on write", variable block size and the ability to deal smartly with saving only delta changes.



    I'd like Apple to go further than ZFS in the area of storing metadata, attributes and other pieces of data along with the file.



    I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt here and assume they didn't abandon ZFS just to be difficult. Either there were technical reasons mitigating against incorporating it fully into OS X, or, as you suggest, there's additional functionality that they want and are willing to go in-house to get it.



    The scary part is the echos of Apple of old, chasing after proprietary solutions that sometimes turn out to be cul-de-sacs.



    EDIT: Ah, I see Gruber is speculating that it might be fallout of from Oracle's Sun acquisition and licensing issues. So if the reasons weren't technical at all, that's a shame.
  • Reply 5 of 6
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Here's a good post from Ironic Software's Tom Andersen about the importance of savvy metadata handling in the next fs.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tom Andersen


    Apple knows that this is a problem with 10.6, but for some reason (performance or security?) decided to backtrack. Metadata on file systems is a hot topic, and right now things are quite messy on Apple's side. HFS+ is getting really really old, and I think that a replacement for it may come along soon, perhaps even before 10.7? Any new file system will likely have first class handling of meta data, including user added metadata. At least that's my best guess at what they might do next. When I say metadata is messy on Apple's side - just think of the following places where metadata for a single file is stored:



    File name, file mod date, permissions, and a few other things are stored 'with the file' on the file system.

    Spotlight comments are stored in the .DS_Store sidecar file, along with other details.

    Some things like Finder labels are stored in some HFS+ specific location.

    QuickLook images - definitely metadata in my opinion - available with an API call.

    Quarantine services - buried in some database somewhere.

    Launch Services (the stuff that keeps track of what application to open what files with) - some other database hidden away somewhere.



    There are at least 5, and likely more places where they store metadata about a single file. The whole system is basically a pile of afterthoughts. A shiny new file system could change all of that. With the current system, a simple rename of a file may result in many updates to many systems on the computer, which is error prone and complicated. A unified metadata system that runs at the file system level would make things run better and faster.



    My emphasis added to what I feel are important parts. Go Apple!
  • Reply 6 of 6
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Maybe I thinking wrong here, but I would prefer a new file system that's already been 'field tested' a bit.



    The thought of a 'brand new' file system that Apple rolls out with 10.7 scares me a bit.
Sign In or Register to comment.