or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem

post #1 of 95
Thread Starter 
OSX to have a similiar FS to BeFS

Quote:
some information on Panther: - It will bring the support of a new format, very similar to the Be OS BSF. This format is supposed to become the substitute of HFS+. It allows in particular a journalizing much simpler. - APPLE still terribly progressed to the optimization of its OS. It is likely y to have a difference in performances between 10.3 and 10.2 as significant as that which separated 10.1 from 10.2. They would have finally done the housework in the code of Next by optimizing it. In any event one will need large innovations in this OS to encourage the customers to buy it. Highly the WWDC!

Translation by Google.

So, let us say Apple does update the FS. Realistically how long would it take for this FS to overtake UFS or HFS+. I'm pretty sure there would be some issues with some applications right? From a programming standpoint would huge changes be required?
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #2 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
OSX to have a similiar FS to BeFS

Translation by Google.

So, let us say Apple does update the FS. Realistically how long would it take for this FS to overtake UFS or HFS+. I'm pretty sure there would be some issues with some applications right? From a programming standpoint would huge changes be required?

I would think any new FS would be completely backward compatible with current applications.

I also don't think the new FS would have any trouble 'overtaking' UFS. I doubt even Apple's OS X based servers use UFS.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #3 of 95
Dude! This is RAD news!!! HFS+ sucks, plain and simple. It is the Mac OS 8.0 of file systems. Times have changed. OSX's Unix underpinnings deserve a FAST, MODERN FS.

I expect speed will be a central feature.

I can't wait to re-format!

One of the twisted ironies of being a Linux user is that I can run Mac OS atop linux using MOL... and get way faster disk access!
post #4 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Dude! This is RAD news!!! HFS+ sucks, plain and simple. It is the Mac OS 8.0 of file systems. Times have changed. OSX's Unix underpinnings deserve a FAST, MODERN FS.

I expect speed will be a central feature.

I can't wait to re-format!

One of the twisted ironies of being a Linux user is that I can run Mac OS atop linux using MOL... and get way faster disk access!

It would be nice if we did not have to reformat but I know it is unbeatable.

I never thought Apple could pull the whole UNIX thing off without having to reformat the drive when going from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X but they shocked the heck out of me...heck even Classic is an amazing work of backwards engineering!
post #5 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Jared
It would be nice if we did not have to reformat but I know it is unbeatable.

Weren't there utilities that allowed you to move from HFS to HFS+ without losing your data though? You know, that way you could reformat to the new FS without "reformatting," i.e. no data loss... maybe Apple could do something similar?

Another question, how will this affect Classic?
post #6 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Dude! This is RAD news!!! HFS+ sucks, plain and simple. It is the Mac OS 8.0 of file systems. Times have changed. OSX's Unix underpinnings deserve a FAST, MODERN FS.

I expect speed will be a central feature.

I can't wait to re-format!

One of the twisted ironies of being a Linux user is that I can run Mac OS atop linux using MOL... and get way faster disk access!

Did I hear re-FORMAT??? me too - ME TOO

Seriously, I'll hope there will be some sort of dynamic update feature. I have well over 200 gigs of data that I'll have to shuffle around if there isn't.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #7 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Ra
Weren't there utilities that allowed you to move from HFS to HFS+ without losing your data though? You know, that way you could reformat to the new FS without "reformatting," i.e. no data loss... maybe Apple could do something similar?

Another question, how will this affect Classic?

They'll find a way to make Classic work I'm sure. Don't think it will be a problem.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #8 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Ra
Another question, how will this affect Classic?

Classic won't work on UFS and that means it accesses HFS directly. So unless a new FS is backward-compatible Classic won't work. Good riddance, I should say! If I have to choose between Classic and a brand-new fast file system with metadata, journaling and some kind of advanced self-protection, I will trash Classic in a minute and drink myself mad for all the nostalgic pain Classic matters.

If I am right, good-citizen applications don't call low-level HFS API and should not even worry about what FS it is. So, apart from disk-repairing utilities all else should work.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #9 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm pretty sure there would be some issues with some applications right? From a programming standpoint would huge changes be required?

Nope. Applications don't care about the filesystem. It's the OS's job to handle this. Exceptions: DiskUtilities like Norton are affected of course.
On linux you can choose between half a dozen of filesystems but the applications stay the same.

cheers
zero
post #10 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by costique
Classic won't work on UFS and that means it accesses HFS directly. So unless a new FS is backward-compatible Classic won't work. Good riddance, I should say! If I have to choose between Classic and a brand-new fast file system with metadata, journaling and some kind of advanced self-protection, I will trash Classic in a minute and drink myself mad for all the nostalgic pain Classic matters.

If I am right, good-citizen applications don't call low-level HFS API and should not even worry about what FS it is. So, apart from disk-repairing utilities all else should work.

If you had to choose, what would it be?
#1: HFS+(+) + Classic
#2: New superspiffy file system (FSXtreme) wo Classic

Stupid q?? 8)
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #11 of 95
what about a new FS that doesnt allow Classic, but then have Classic in a Disk Image of somekind that is HFS+ formatted? Like a VirtualPC image that auto grows or shrinks according to need.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #12 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by ZO
what about a new FS that doesnt allow Classic, but then have Classic in a Disk Image of somekind that is HFS+ formatted? Like a VirtualPC image that auto grows or shrinks according to need.

Possible. But if your data is stored on a "New FS" Disk/Partition classic needs an extension to read "New FS". You can't even access "UFS" data from classic/native OS9 at the moment (maybe I'm wrong. Never tried).
Anyway, I don't use classic so I don't give a ****. Give me a faster FileSystem with journaling... ByeBye HFS+.
post #13 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by ZO
what about a new FS that doesnt allow Classic, but then have Classic in a Disk Image of somekind that is HFS+ formatted? Like a VirtualPC image that auto grows or shrinks according to need.

If they implemented this system, could classic and classic programs access files outside of the virtual disk, or do they all have to be on the virtual disk?

(Update)
To Zero:

If you had an extension to classic that would allow it to read data, why couldn't you make it like an interpreter between the file-systems? Classic sees the new file-system trough the interpreter, and think it's talking to the good old HFS. That way both programs and data could reside on the new file system wo classic ever knowing.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #14 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Jared
It would be nice if we did not have to reformat but I know it is unbeatable.

Yes...reformatting is a pain in the butt. Especially for those that don't have the equipment to back up their HD (ie, no CD-burners, no removable media, no external HDs.)...but it's actually good to reformat once in a while.

I rarely format my drive, but a new OS filesystem or even just a new OS upgrade is a good excuse to start fresh. Plus you never know what will await if you simply upgrade over an older OS. Incompatibility problems with 3rd party apps, kexts, etc...

If rumors are true...10.3 with a new Be-like FS (probably written from scratch by that Dominic guy), and all the other rumored goodies and apps, will be the mother of all upgrades...almost as big as the changes from OS 9 to OS X.
post #15 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by NETROMac
If you had to choose, what would it be?
#1: HFS+(+) + Classic
#2: New superspiffy file system (FSXtreme) wo Classic

Stupid q?? 8)

I'd choose #2 without hesitation because I use the file system every minute (constantly), while I launch Classic once a month at best.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #16 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by NETROMac
If you had an extension to classic that would allow it to read data, why couldn't you make it like an interpreter between the file-systems? Classic sees the new file-system trough the interpreter, and think it's talking to the good old HFS.

Technically possible. I just don't think His Steveness changed his mind about burying Classic. It may be so that they will offer two alternatives: format or not format. The first is BFS+ without Classic for those whose hands aren't tied, the latter is HFS+ & Classic.

[Edit] Is networking still possible between old and new systems if an older system doesn't know about a newer one?
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #17 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by costique
[Edit] Is networking still possible between old and new systems if an older system doesn't know about a newer one?

I'm not sure, but I don't think the type of file system you are using would stop other machines from connecting to you on a network. Did I understand your question right there costique?
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #18 of 95
Yes. I am not a networking expert, but there are network protocols and there are file systems. When one computer asks another for file sharing action (list files, open/read/write/close file and others), does it send these commands directly to that other computer or is file sharing a part of high-level network protocols (like tell computer B to read the file C for me and send me the data)? I used to think the latter way.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #19 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by costique
Yes. I am not a networking expert, but there are network protocols and there are file systems. When one computer asks another for file sharing action (list files, open/read/write/close file and others), does it send these commands directly to that other computer or is file sharing a part of high-level network protocols (like tell computer B to read the file C for me and send me the data)? I used to think the latter way.

I'm almost certain it works that way, and therefore it doesn't matter what file system you're on as long as the computers use the same network protocols.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #20 of 95
Thread Starter 
Cool news fellas. For some reason I thought that a new FS would require time for developers to get acclimated. I'm more excited about this "possible" development.


I hope it's true. It may be key to speeding up some applications. And of course improving the User Experience.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #21 of 95
What happened to the rumors that Apple was essentially making HFS++(+?), that is, they've already added journaling, now they're adding some sort of database-like structure to the existing HFS+ filesystem? Is this sort of scenario not feasible to make HFS carry BeOS-like FS featurees and retain Classic support and do it with less work?
post #22 of 95
Well, remember when Apple upped to HFS+ back in 8.1? To read HFS+ disks, you needed 8.1, but you didn't need to reformat immediately. I imagine such will be the case again... only this time a much better improvement!
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
Reply
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
Reply
post #23 of 95
People...I'd still take this rumor with a grain of salt.

Why the heck would MacBidouille have this kind of info anyways.

I'd Be ( ) very happy if we got a new file system but I'd try not to believe anything from MacBidouille.
post #24 of 95
Thread Starter 
KKS

This is not Earth Shattering new. BeOS has had this for years. I doubt this would be a feature that Apple would agressivlely guard. We'll know soon enuff.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
I expect speed will be a central feature.

Yes, speed will be a central feature - slower speed.
post #26 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Yes, speed will be a central feature - slower speed.

Who pissed in your Cheerios?
post #27 of 95
Somehow I doubt we will be implementing big-ass features that slow down the OS, as that is universally seen as the biggest problem.
post #28 of 95
IIRC, Classic can now run off disk images. I can't remember where I read it, but I'm almost 100% that this is the case. If so, Classic could still be used, even if it needs to have HFS+ to run. I'll see if I can find a link....

edit: here's a link
post #29 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Who pissed in your Cheerios?

It wasn't Cheerios. It was Frosted Mini-wheats. And when I find out...

Let me clarify - if journaling becomes a standard feature, it will probably be slower than the current system. If journaling is not on by default, then perhaps it will be faster. I can't tell from this article.
post #30 of 95
i don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but macrumors.com was kind enough to post a link to a 2001 article by Scot Hacker on the advantages of BFS over HFS+. worth a read, even to a non-super-techie like myself.

Tales of a BeOS refugee: the BFS File System
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #31 of 95
All I will note is that if the new file system can duplicate all of HFS' functionality, it might be possible for Apple to write a shim that makes it look like HFS to Classic. Apple didn't do this with UFS partly because it would be incredibly difficult, and partly because they're not exactly encouraging people to adopt it — UFS isn't even recommended for native OS X.

I'd expect the new system to be a lot more powerful, but as far as Classic is concerned, it only has to be capable of looking like HFS. The technological analogy I have in mind is the ability of an Oracle database to look and act like a file server. Obviously, it's capable of a great deal more than that, but it can pretend to be a mere hierarchical filesystem if necessary, and your Windows machine and your UNIX workstation will never know better.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #32 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by torifile
IIRC, Classic can now run off disk images. I can't remember where I read it, but I'm almost 100% that this is the case. If so, Classic could still be used, even if it needs to have HFS+ to run. I'll see if I can find a link....

edit: here's a link

Classic had to run off a disk image back in the 10.0 Developer Preview days. I guess we have come full circle. 8)
post #33 of 95
What is journaling in techspeak?
post #34 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
What is journaling in techspeak?

You mean what does it mean in techspeak?

Journaling is simple: When the filesystem is told to make a change (write a new file, append to an existing file, delete a file) it writes in a journal that it is about to perform the requested action. Then it performs the action. Then it writes in the journal that it has successfully performed the action.

Now, let's say that something terrible happens while you're saving a document. You restart. The filesystem looks at the journal, and sees that it was intending to write out a particular file. It also sees that there's no journal entry saying that it finished. It now knows that something is wrong, and it can recover as gracefully as circumstances allow (e.g., it might be able to make a second attempt at saving the file based on information in the journal). Without journaling, the filesystem would have tried to write out the file, failed, and forgotten that it was doing anything on reboot, silently leaving you with a truncated or corrupted file.

That's the idea in a nutshell. It's very powerful in practice, because it makes the machine that much better able to recover from disaster. This is why server admins love journaling.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #35 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Let me clarify - if journaling becomes a standard feature, it will probably be slower than the current system.

I don't think you can assume that. XFS and BFS are probably faster than HFS+, and they always use journaling.
post #36 of 95
Yep--journalling does not equal massive speed hit.
post #37 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by mrmister
Yep--journalling does not equal massive speed hit.

It does depend on the implementation. The Jaguar journaling isn't critically slow, which makes me think that if they write a new FS from scratch, we may even see an overall improvement in comparison with HFS+ due to multithreading, all-native code, etc.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #38 of 95
Based on the fact that Dominic Giampaolo who wrote the Be File System is working for Apple, I have a feeling that Apple soon will present a great implementation of a Journaling file system. The Be File System is very good and fast, but it was made in in a rush. With his experience from creating BFS and enough time and resources from Apple, I'm sure something great will come....
post #39 of 95
haha i love apple...so innovative, even if this isn't real it doesn't matter, i like being a fanatic to a company that does stuff and not just copies


i would hope they make a util that can reformat without loosing data, i remember using a util that converted from HFS to HFS+...had to run it over night on my slower machine and it gave me like 600 more megs (on a 2GB HD!).
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
post #40 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Journaling is simple: When the filesystem is told to make a change (write a new file, append to an existing file, delete a file) it writes in a journal that it is about to perform the requested action. Then it performs the action. Then it writes in the journal that it has successfully performed the action.

That's the idea in a nutshell. It's very powerful in practice, because it makes the machine that much better able to recover from disaster. This is why server admins love journaling.

True... and also...

When a file is changed, the previous data is untouched until the new data has been created. When the write is finished, the filesystem just points to the new data instead of the old. This reuslts in a MUCH smaller window of opportunity for data corruption. (This is the way that Apple has impletended HFS+'s journaling right?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem