or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple to adopt ZFS as default file system for Leopard
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to adopt ZFS as default file system for Leopard - Page 2

post #41 of 157
1. So easy your mom could administer it

ZFS is administered by two commands, zpool and zfs. Most tasks typically require a single command to accomplish. And the commands are designed to make sense. For example, check out the commands to create a RAID 1 mirrored filesystem and place a quota on its size.

2. Honkin' big filesystems

How big do filesystems need to be? In a world where 640KB is certainly not enough for computer memory, current filesystems have reached or are reaching the end of their usefulness. A 64-bit filesystem would meet today's need, but estimate of the lifetime of a 64-bit filesystem is about 10 years. Extending to 128-bits gives ZFS an expected lifetime of 30 years (UFS, for comparison, is about 20 years old). So how much data can you squeeze into a 128-bit filesystem? 16 exabytes or 18 million terabytes. How many files can you cram into a ZFS filesystem? 200 million million.

Could anyone use a fileystem that large? No, not really. The topic has roused discussions about boiling the oceans if a real life storage unit that size was powered on. It may not be necessary to have 128 bits, but it doesn't hurt and we won't have to worry about running out of addressable space.

3. Filesystem, heal thyself

ZFS employs 256 bit checksums end-to-end to validate data stored under its protection. Most filesystems (and you know who you are) depend on the underlying hardware to detect corrupted data and then can only nag about it if they get such a message. Every block in a ZFS filesystem has a checksum associated with it. If ZFS detects a checksum mismatch on a raidz or mirrored filesystem, it will actively reconstruct the block from the available redundancy and go on about its job.

4. fsck off, fsck

fsck has been voted out of the house. We don't need it anymore. Because ZFS data are always consistent on disk, don't be afraid to yank out those power cords if you feel like it. Your ZFS filesystems will never require you to enter the superuser password for maintenance mode.

5. Compress to your heart's content

I've always been a proponent of optional and appropriate compression in filesystems. There are some data that are well suited to compression such as server logs. Many people get ruffled up over this topic, although I suspect that they were once burned by doublespace munching up an important document. When thoughtfully used, ZFS compression can improve disk I/O which is a common bottleneck. ZFS compression can be turned on for individual filesystems or hierarchies with a very easy single command.

6. Unconstrained architecture

UFS and other filesystems use a constrained model of fixed partitions or volumes, each filesystem having a set amount of available disk space. ZFS uses a pooled storage model. This is a significant departure from the traditional concept of filesystems. Many current production systems may have a single digit number of filesystems and adding or manipulating existing filesystems in such an environment is difficult.

In ZFS, pools are created from physical storage. Mirroring or the new RAID-Z redundancy exists at the pool level. Instead of breaking pools apart into filesystems, each newly created filesystem shares the available space in the pool, although a minimum amount of space can be reserved for it. ZFS filesystems exist in their own hierarchy, children filesystems inherit the properties of their parents, and each ZFS filesystem in the hierarchy can easily be mounted in different places in the host filesystem.

7. Grow filesystems without green thumb

If your pool becomes overcrowded, you can grow it. With one command. On a live production system. Enough said.

8. Dynamic striping

On by default, dynamic striping automatically includes all deivces in a pool in writes simultaneously (stripe width spans all the avaiable media). This will speed up the I/O on systems with multiple paths to storage by load balancing the I/O on all of the paths.

9. The term "raidz" sounds so l33t

The new RAID-Z redundant storage model replaces RAID-5 and improves upon it. RAID-Z does not suffer from the "write hole" in which a stripe of data becomes corrupt because of a loss of power during the vulnerable period between writing the data and the parity. RAID-Z, like RAID-5, can survive the loss of one disk. A future release is planned using the keyword raidz2 which can tolerate the loss of two disks. Perhaps the best feature is that creating a raidz pool is crazy simple.

10. Clones with no ethical issues

The simple creation of snapshots and clones of filesystems makes living with ZFS so much more enjoyable. A snapshot is a read-only point-in-time copy of a filesystem which takes practically no time to create and uses no additional space at the beginning. Any snapshot can be cloned to make a read-write filesystem and any snapshot of a filesystem can be restored to the original filesystem to return to the previous state. Snapshots can be written to other storage (disk, tape), transferred to another system, and converted back into a filesystem.
post #42 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindwarrior View Post

I like HFS+ but it's carrying a *lot* of legacy code (6800 code emulated into powerPC emulated to x86).

That sentence makes absolutely no sense.
post #43 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

"I'm gonna kill you, Schwartz!" -Steve Jobs

NO SJ doesn't do that. He'll just say, you're not being professional and creative enough, let's adopt a black turleneck attire shall we....
post #44 of 157
YES, this is the kind of thing I want to hear!

ZFS sounds like a great filesystem and I'm glad it won't be just an option but used by default. If it was an option, people would never use it. I think disk IO is one of OS X's biggest problems with using laptop drives so hopefully this will go a little way to relieving it.
post #45 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post


This is great news, Filesystems like ZFS are essential for a future where storage is online, all-the-time.

Hmmmm. . . . Do I smell a .mac upgrade in the works? Steve did mention it last week. . . .
Crentist?! That sounds an awful lot like *dentist.*
Maybe thats why he wanted to be a dentist!
Reply
Crentist?! That sounds an awful lot like *dentist.*
Maybe thats why he wanted to be a dentist!
Reply
post #46 of 157
Will we see ZFS in the WWDC07 build or do we have to wait till October?

~Matt
post #47 of 157
ZFS can be the boot volume. Some of the people I interact with in the Open Solaris community are already booting from ZFS on PCs by messing with the GRUB bootloader. My understanding is that the Mac's Extensible Firmware is much more flexible than GRUB, so it should be pretty easy to boot from ZFS on a Mac (in theory).

Xserves no longer ship with a RAID card option (!). This makes me think that ZFS is in the pipeline in some way, since ZFS (on a fast, 64-bit machine) is a more than adequate replacement for RAID-5, and has the advantage of not being tied to manufacturer-specific hardware.

ZFS is also endian-agnostic, which means that it can internally handle data no matter whether the system's processor is little-endian byte order (x86) or big-endian (PPC). That would be a pretty nice think for Mac users, I would think.

While it's true that you can add any device you like to a zpool, you CAN'T add a device to a RAID-Z pool and have it be part of the parity array (at least, you can't do this yet). So the extra disk you slap onto a pool that is configured to be RAID-Z won't get protected by parity - you'll have a sort of RAID-Z/JBOD pool at that point.

There IS and option when creating a stripe (which you CAN add to very flexibly) to specify that all bits be written between 1 and 3 separate times to the pool. I think ZFS will try to write each copy to a separate physical device, if possible.

Even if Schwartz is wrong (and I think he's an even more impressive CEO than Jobs), I'd at least recommend grabbing a copy of Solaris 10 or Open Solaris and installing it on an old PC or and Intel Mac and checking it out ZFS that way.
post #48 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The Steve is powerful. Next, when you go to the Sun site you'll find a pottery enthusiast page.

Do not pre-announce the Steve's magics.

post #49 of 157
I guess the solved the booting issue, cool.
post #50 of 157
http://news.worldofapple.com/archive...-os-x-leopard/

This was out there in December. So Jonathan isn't really leaking anything.

post #51 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

I would think that ZFS would allow you to have a virtual filesystem that crosses physical boundaries of hard drives.

I ran out of space on my main/boot harddrive because of video. With ZFS, I think I should be able to extend the filesystem so that it looks like all my videos are under my own username/home directory but actually are on 2 separate drives.

Any insights on how ZFS might benefit users?

As stated it works with virtual file systems. I would assume that HSF+ could be one of those.
post #52 of 157
Stupid question:

Won't time machine either rely on ZFS to make it work, or at least, to make it work much better?
post #53 of 157
It appears that ZFS supports forks/streams, so it should be possible to emulate most of the legacy features of HFS+.

The only thing I'm curious about is whether there's any way to implement the HFS+ feature of referencing a file by its file ID instead of its path, using FSRefs or aliases, so that your reference follows the file even if it is moved in the file system. Is this possible in ZFS, or is it something we'll have to say goodbye to (which would be a shame, because I don't know of any other OS that can do this)?
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #54 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

Stupid question:

Won't time machine either rely on ZFS to make it work, or at least, to make it work much better?

Not stupid at all. I'm beginning to think that Apple knew they'd be moving to ZFS.

1. Time Machine has "snapshots" written all over it.
2. The Xserve had no RAID card which was WTF?
3. No XSAN update in a while (longshot but perhaps it's going to be delivered with ZFS supports)
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 #55 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by nine9nin View Post

10. Clones with no ethical issues

The simple creation of snapshots and clones of filesystems makes living with ZFS so much more enjoyable. A snapshot is a read-only point-in-time copy of a filesystem which takes practically no time to create and uses no additional space at the beginning. Any snapshot can be cloned to make a read-write filesystem and any snapshot of a filesystem can be restored to the original filesystem to return to the previous state. Snapshots can be written to other storage (disk, tape), transferred to another system, and converted back into a filesystem.

I know nothing about filesystems, but I know the chazm that always exists between my Power Mac and my PowerBook is incredibly annoying. I've repeatedly said that Apple should allow us to easily sync our portables (primarily Mail) with our main computer.

Is that part of what this point is referencing? Will ZFS make it easier to sync multiple machines?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #56 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

Stupid question:

Won't time machine either rely on ZFS to make it work, or at least, to make it work much better?

Time Machine is a relative back-up system. It backs up everything once, then it backs up changes on top of that. So if I back up daily, then the second back-up will only back-up things that I changed.

ZFS would let time machine work block-by-block instead of file by file. Imagine if I have my photo library backed up. If it's in a file-by-file set-up, then when I change one tiny little thing (tags, name, whatever), it will re-backup the whole photo (1-2 MB). Using ZFS, it'll re-backup a block (like a few KB or so).

With regards to the booting issue, Macs already use a separate boot partition of some sort, don't they?
post #57 of 157
We know that Apple has jammed ZFS + 'dtrace' + Java from
Sun into MacOS X for a while now. Perhaps a "secret feature" from
the near/medium-term future is to just replace the whole damn
kernel with (soon to be GPL3) Solaris. Natch, this will only
run on Intel-based non-legacy Macs.
post #58 of 157
how to express my self about this news??

THINKS "remember that I shouldnt believe everything I read (particularly on the internet)
Remember that Steve shuts off and shuts down pre announcing people, so even if it were true, he could kill it.
Remeber that its REALLY too close to WWDC for him to pull the plug on ZFS.

Conclusion = Revert to original first gut feeling on reading this.

OH MY GAAWD!

If true I am SO over the moon happy, there is VERY little I have read online that has made me want to join hands with everyone and dance around the room singing.

Maybe I'll get round to that, when it comes out of Steves mouth.
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
post #59 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski View Post

Time Machine is a relative back-up system.

You think? The TIME part sorta gives it away
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
post #60 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiarius View Post

We know that Apple has jammed ZFS + 'dtrace' + Java from
Sun into MacOS X for a while now. Perhaps a "secret feature" from
the near/medium-term future is to just replace the whole damn
kernel with (soon to be GPL3) Solaris. Natch, this will only
run on Intel-based non-legacy Macs.

Basically every OS runs Java. When something doesn't have a Java runtime, that's notable.

There's no way that you can effortlessly swap out a kernel. There's a lot of interfacing between the kernel and the userspace.

No offense, but by your logic, Apple uses bash, gcc, and about 80 other GNU utilities. Maybe they're switching to Hrud. Or they use OpenSSH, maybe they're switching to a pure OpenBSD kernel. Sorry, but that doesn't really hold weight.

Not to mention, what does the OpenSolaris kernel have that Darwin doesn't?
post #61 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

You think? The TIME part sorta gives it away

I meant that it's "relative" in the sense of it makes incremental backups in relation to the first back-up. So if you have a 50 GB filesystem (say, 10,000 files) backed up on Monday, then if you change 50 files, then it only backs up those 50 files, resulting in a total back-up size of like 50.1 GB (actually, there's compression, so it'd be smaller). In an absolute backup system, you'd have 50 GB + 50 GB = 100 GB of data over those two days.
post #62 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

There's one advantage I'd see. Say you've a big networked drive sat on a network using a ZFS pool. How cool would it be to add that pool in to your networked iPod, iPhone or AppleTV and seamlessly have a huge media library to use. Or even viceversa so you no longer have to sync data between two drives.

Now, that's a very interesting idea!
post #63 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by nine9nin View Post

1. So easy your mom could administer it

etc.

Very good. Come back more often!
post #64 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski View Post

Not to mention, what does the OpenSolaris kernel have that Darwin doesn't?

Ah, you don't want to be opening up the old Mach argument.
post #65 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindwarrior View Post

Even if all things were equal; ZFS should provide a performance boost. I like HFS+ but it's carrying a *lot* of legacy code (6800 code emulated into powerPC emulated to x86). I'm only loosely familiar with ZFS but I'm mostly impressed (certainly hard to use up a 128 bit file system and it's capacity to "nest" file systems means it can be both efficient and virtually inexhaustable; in that small files can stay small -- generally, increasing the number of bits for a file system also increases the size of the smallest sector).


K

For the restless souls who want to know what ZFS is and can do - check out this 7-segment presentation given by one of the guys "behind" ZFS.
http://www.sun.com/software/media/re...bandwidth.html

The sections on performance, data security, snapshots (for time machine), block sizes, and one of the bigger, and I think key features, storage pooling. Then there are these funny references to a certain O/S and what it does (today) to prevent [silent] data corruption.
post #66 of 157
I haven't heard it mentioned so I'll just ask here. Is this a joint effort between Apple and SUN to marry ZFS to OS X, or is Apple going it alone with the ZFS open source?

If it's a collaboration bewteen Apple and SUN will the source code have to be published (Especially if it boots ZFS)?

(I apologize in advance for this identical post on MacRumors)
post #67 of 157
Interesting article (not written by me)...

http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2007/..._file_sys.html
post #68 of 157
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #69 of 157
sweet!
Now if only they'd include ext2/3 support, I'd actually be able to format external drives in a format that's rw on all my OSs and supports files bigger than 4gb! :-p
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
post #70 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by nine9nin View Post

3. Filesystem, heal thyself

ZFS employs 256 bit checksums end-to-end to validate data stored under its protection. Most filesystems (and you know who you are) depend on the underlying hardware to detect corrupted data and then can only nag about it if they get such a message. Every block in a ZFS filesystem has a checksum associated with it. If ZFS detects a checksum mismatch on a raidz or mirrored filesystem, it will actively reconstruct the block from the available redundancy and go on about its job.

4. fsck off, fsck

fsck has been voted out of the house. We don't need it anymore. Because ZFS data are always consistent on disk, don't be afraid to yank out those power cords if you feel like it. Your ZFS filesystems will never require you to enter the superuser password for maintenance mode.

Don't pull out those power cords, as no filesystem can ever fix a head crash. And all the fancy RAID stuff only works in case you actually activate it and lose a portion of your disk space in the process.

As long as writing data to the disk takes a non-zero amount of time, the statement that data is always consistent on disk is not universally true.
post #71 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by crentist View Post

Hmmmm. . . . Do I smell a .mac upgrade in the works? Steve did mention it last week. . . .

Sorry, I meant 'online' in the video editing sense of the word not the net sense.

I was having a discussion on the RED site about needing my assets online (ie. available to my desktop machine) at all times and for several years in the future. Rather than engaging in tape back-ups (yuck) we should be able to add (incredibly cheap) storage at regular intervals and have the system sort out back-ups etc. Spookily I mentioned ZFS as a possibility.
post #72 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

I haven't heard it mentioned so I'll just ask here. Is this a joint effort between Apple and SUN to marry ZFS to OS X, or is Apple going it alone with the ZFS open source?

If it's a collaboration bewteen Apple and SUN will the source code have to be published (Especially if it boots ZFS)?

(I apologize in advance for this identical post on MacRumors)

I would have to say it is a collaboration. If Apple was going to use the Open Source code, why why Sun's CEO have knowledge of all of this?

Unclear on the implications on publishing, though. . .
Crentist?! That sounds an awful lot like *dentist.*
Maybe thats why he wanted to be a dentist!
Reply
Crentist?! That sounds an awful lot like *dentist.*
Maybe thats why he wanted to be a dentist!
Reply
post #73 of 157
Darwin is not a 'real server' OS. It's not tuned like Solaris is for massively parallel workloads.

I'm using the latest Open Solaris right now, and it's much more powerful in many respects than OS X/Darwin.

Solaris and Open Solaris both have lots of GNU utils now, also. (SSH, gcc, bash and on and on).


Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski View Post

Basically every OS runs Java. When something doesn't have a Java runtime, that's notable.

There's no way that you can effortlessly swap out a kernel. There's a lot of interfacing between the kernel and the userspace.

No offense, but by your logic, Apple uses bash, gcc, and about 80 other GNU utilities. Maybe they're switching to Hrud. Or they use OpenSSH, maybe they're switching to a pure OpenBSD kernel. Sorry, but that doesn't really hold weight.

Not to mention, what does the OpenSolaris kernel have that Darwin doesn't?
post #74 of 157
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #75 of 157
I'm just looking at getting a mac (vista's a dead end as far as I am concerned!) and wondering what all this is about - read the info links about the ZFS stuff and it looks alright. in the grand sceme of things how will this change to ZFS affect the users on different levels, say from casual email/word processor, daily user with several apps (wp/photoshop/video edit etc) and finally to the developer/coder types? my guess is only the latter will really benefit from it fully, wont they? and the others less so - but please enlighten me otherwise. and I'm assuming its something that, say, an existing user can update their current OS to or would that be all wrong too?
post #76 of 157
ZFS tools (zpool and zfs) let you create a test pool from flat files. Like:

mkfile 128m file1 file2 file3

zpool create testpool raidz /[path]/file1 /[path]/file2 /[path]/file3

zfs create testpool/testfs



I've done this test and then used vi to delete random large chunks of data (simulating a read head bounce) and ZFS will recover. You do have to creat the pool as raidz, of course. ZFS is specifically meant to self-heal when a member of a raid-z array dies. If you do the new double-parity raidz2 option, you can have 2 disks fail at once and still get by.

ZFS claims that the data is always consistent on disk because it doesn't record that the file is written until it's been checksummed and verified (few other filesystems checksum data on the fly). Also, writes are transactional, which means that rather than the write being something like 'read,modify,overwrite' it's more like 'read,modify,write changes to new blocks that references the old ones'. This is also like the mechanism that allows nice snapshots on ZFS pools.

So, you are correct that the FS can't fix a head crash. All it can do (provided you mirror or raidz(2)) is protect your data from going away in case a head does crash. 'There are only two kinds of disks; those that have crashed and those that are about to'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Don't pull out those power cords, as no filesystem can ever fix a head crash. And all the fancy RAID stuff only works in case you actually activate it and lose a portion of your disk space in the process.

As long as writing data to the disk takes a non-zero amount of time, the statement that data is always consistent on disk is not universally true.
post #77 of 157
I'm just noting why they might be motivated to switch from BSD to Solaris guts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

So simply because it's not a 'real server' OS, Apple MUST be swapping out the XNU.

That makes no sense.

Sebastian
post #78 of 157
Yes, ZFS (+RAIDZ) makes large JBOD arrays safe enough for data you don't want to lose but don't want to futz around with which RAID type to do plus provisioning it and worring about what the heck you need to do to add a drive and so forth...which why you have a JBOD array vs a RAID in the first place. Ease of use and expansion. That alone is worth using ZFS and it does more.
post #79 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski View Post

ZFS would let time machine work block-by-block instead of file by file. Imagine if I have my photo library backed up. If it's in a file-by-file set-up, then when I change one tiny little thing (tags, name, whatever), it will re-backup the whole photo (1-2 MB). Using ZFS, it'll re-backup a block (like a few KB or so).

Really? Time Machine (on HFS+ anyway) doesn't just back up the delta? It backs up the entire changed file?

If so, TimeMachine really would see a huge advantage as an interface over ZFS snapshots.
post #80 of 157
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple to adopt ZFS as default file system for Leopard