MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 94
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    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!
  • Reply 22 of 94
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    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.
  • Reply 23 of 94
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,402member
    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.
  • Reply 24 of 94
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R

    I expect speed will be a central feature.



    Yes, speed will be a central feature - slower speed.
  • Reply 25 of 94
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Yes, speed will be a central feature - slower speed.



    Who pissed in your Cheerios?
  • Reply 26 of 94
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    Somehow I doubt we will be implementing big-ass features that slow down the OS, as that is universally seen as the biggest problem.
  • Reply 27 of 94
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    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
  • Reply 28 of 94
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    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.
  • Reply 29 of 94
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    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
  • Reply 30 of 94
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    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.
  • Reply 31 of 94
    nitzernitzer Posts: 115member
    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)
  • Reply 32 of 94
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    What is journaling in techspeak?
  • Reply 33 of 94
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    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.
  • Reply 34 of 94
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    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.
  • Reply 35 of 94
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    Yep--journalling does not equal massive speed hit.
  • Reply 36 of 94
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    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.
  • Reply 37 of 94
    nizonizo Posts: 5member
    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....
  • Reply 38 of 94
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    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!).
  • Reply 39 of 94
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    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?)
  • Reply 40 of 94
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    One thing is for sure if Apple is working on a new Be-like database filesystem: we're getting a new Finder to take advantage of the new filesystem's capabilities...hopefully rewritten from scratch with speed in mind (and if rewritten from scratch, then Apple would definitely choose Cocoa for their rewrite.)
Sign In or Register to comment.