MFS Circa 1984 - Dropped support with System 7.6.1
HFS Circa 1985 - Became default FS at intro? - Still supported
HFS+ Circa 1998 - Became default FS with OS X rollout - Still supported
Speculation:
ZFS Circa 2007 - Became default FS ????
Yep - those wild and crazy folks in the FS group are most radical indeed!
Dave
Thanks for sharing that list. Didn't Apple change to a "new file-system" to support Spotlight. The main directory and file-headers had to be changed. I clearly remember something of that sort when we upgraded to the new OSX Server.
Also wasn't that one of MS main hurdles in offering a search-engine similar to Spotlight in their Vista OS?
Thanks for sharing that list. Didn't Apple change to a "new file-system" to support Spotlight. The main directory and file-headers had to be changed. I clearly remember something of that sort when we upgraded to the new OSX Server.
Also wasn't that one of MS main hurdles in offering a search-engine similar to Spotlight in their Vista OS?
File systems can be updated from time to time. HFS+ may have changed a little over time. I know NTFS is at least on its fifth variation, maybe more.
Alright so it was HFSX that made Spotlight possible because of the Inline Attribute Data Records.
"With 10.4, Apple added support for Inline Attribute Data records, something that had been a part of the Mac OS X implementation of HFS Plus since at least 10.0, but always marked as "reserved for future use".[5] Until the release of Mac OS X Server 10.4, HFS Plus only supported the standard UNIX file system permissions, however 10.4 introduced support for access control list-based file security, which is designed to be fully compatible with the file permission system used by Microsoft Windows XP and Windows Server 2003."
Thanks for the link. I hadn't released HFS had rejiggered so much with each OS release.
No biggie. Since ZFS is still read only anyway there for being little use to anyone using OS X, all Apple has to do is remove ZFS access in DIsk Utility and be done with the matter until the lawsuit is settled.
September 05, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Network Appliance Inc. today announced that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sun Microsystems Inc. seeking unspecified compensatory damages and an injunction that would prohibit Sun from developing or distributing products based on its ZFS file system technology.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Lufkin, Texas, charges that the Sun ZFS technology infringes on seven NetApp patents pertaining to data processing systems and related software.
Dave Hitz, NetApps's founder and executive vice president, said the lawsuit was filed largely because Sun 18 months ago "aggressively demanded" cross-licensing fees related to the Write Anywhere File Layout (WAFL) file-system technology included in ZFS. Hitz said the cross-licensing talks were halted in April after Sun claimed that NetApp's use of WAFL infringed on Sun patents.
"Those discussions obviously went nowhere and basically fell silent," he said. "By that time, [the ZFS file system] was in the public domain. They started this discussion by asserting we infringed on their patents and asked us to pay them royalties on their patents." Earlier this year, Sun released the ZFS source code, part of its Solaris operating system, to the open source community, Hitz noted.
Sun declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Hitz said that during its negotiations, Sun did not specify which NetApp products infringed on its patents. However, he noted that Sun did say that most of those patents were gained through its $4.1 billion acquisition of Storage Technology Corp. in 2005.
NetApp has no plans to assert any claims against its own customers or Sun's customers in regards to ZFS or other patent infringement. While Hitz acknowledged that the lawsuit could have implications for the future of ZFS, he declined to elaborate on specific outcomes.
So who is suing whom? This looks like a pissing match between Sun and Netapp more than anything else. Sun threatens NetApp. NetApp counters by suing Sun. This bull shit will lead to an out-of-court settlement.
ZFS is too large for the desktop imo. I think it will be part of Apple's server strategy with the clients accessing the file system. I don't think it will be restricted to read-only. HFS+ in it's current incarnation is quite sufficient for the desktop. I fail to see any areas where it is crippling the advancement of the Mac OS.
Developers receiving the latest ZFS preview, however, are granted access to full read and write capabilities under Leopard, including the ability to create and destruct ZFS pools and filesystems.
Read Write are already supported. It is a matter of getting the legal issues cleared up and implementing ZFS and building the frameworks or adding ZFS to the frameworks. A flip of the switch and it can take over for HFS+ (or HFSX+), and then people can begin to use its' special features. 6 months to a year, depending on what Apple has already done, and what the open source crowd has or will do and when.
For those that think that this will show up in Server first may only be correct because Apple may want some real world testing before rolling this out for regular OS. Apple would be wasting money if this was only for Server. The real money is made when Apple uses new technologies to make using a computer easier, therefore this will go mainstream ASAP. There may be some Server only parts but the bulk to go mainstream and as quickly as Apple can make it happen. This would be a major strategic advantage that could help boost Apple into the Corp world, depending on what all Apple can do with the technology. "ZFS the most advanced file system on the planet, right there storing, organizing, and verifying all of your most precious photos in iPhoto. You'll never have to worry about losing any of your electronic records, your photos, your movies, even your music. ZFS checks and verifies and if it finds anything wrong, it corrects the problem before you lose some of the moments you value most. Our new file system does this for you automatically every time you use your Mac, that is how much we value your electronic records." Apple marketing - 101.
Comments
Apple's filesystem changes since 1984:
MFS Circa 1984 - Dropped support with System 7.6.1
HFS Circa 1985 - Became default FS at intro? - Still supported
HFS+ Circa 1998 - Became default FS with OS X rollout - Still supported
Speculation:
ZFS Circa 2007 - Became default FS ????
Yep - those wild and crazy folks in the FS group are most radical indeed!
Dave
Thanks for sharing that list. Didn't Apple change to a "new file-system" to support Spotlight. The main directory and file-headers had to be changed. I clearly remember something of that sort when we upgraded to the new OSX Server.
Also wasn't that one of MS main hurdles in offering a search-engine similar to Spotlight in their Vista OS?
Thanks for sharing that list. Didn't Apple change to a "new file-system" to support Spotlight. The main directory and file-headers had to be changed. I clearly remember something of that sort when we upgraded to the new OSX Server.
Also wasn't that one of MS main hurdles in offering a search-engine similar to Spotlight in their Vista OS?
File systems can be updated from time to time. HFS+ may have changed a little over time. I know NTFS is at least on its fifth variation, maybe more.
I know NTFS is at least on its fifth variation, maybe more.
Someone gets a brownie.
? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS#Versioning
File systems can be updated from time to time. HFS+ may have changed a little over time. I know NTFS is at least on its fifth variation, maybe more.
Wikipedia:
10.0 HFS plus
10.2 HFSJ (Journaling for OSX Server)
10.3 HFSJ for all OSX
10.4 HFSX+XP compatability
Alright so it was HFSX that made Spotlight possible because of the Inline Attribute Data Records.
I guess
Wonder if the patent infringement lawsuit against sun over ZFS will affect the release date of OS X?
Why? ZFS is Open Source and 10.5 will be using HFS as its file system.
10.4 HFSX+XP compatability
Alright so it was HFSX that made Spotlight possible because of the Inline Attribute Data Records.
"With 10.4, Apple added support for Inline Attribute Data records, something that had been a part of the Mac OS X implementation of HFS Plus since at least 10.0, but always marked as "reserved for future use".[5] Until the release of Mac OS X Server 10.4, HFS Plus only supported the standard UNIX file system permissions, however 10.4 introduced support for access control list-based file security, which is designed to be fully compatible with the file permission system used by Microsoft Windows XP and Windows Server 2003."
Thanks for the link. I hadn't released HFS had rejiggered so much with each OS release.
Why? ZFS is Open Source and 10.5 will be using HFS as its file system.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/...c=news_ts_head
http://www.computerworld.com/action/...c=news_ts_head
No biggie. Since ZFS is still read only anyway there for being little use to anyone using OS X, all Apple has to do is remove ZFS access in DIsk Utility and be done with the matter until the lawsuit is settled.
September 05, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Network Appliance Inc. today announced that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sun Microsystems Inc. seeking unspecified compensatory damages and an injunction that would prohibit Sun from developing or distributing products based on its ZFS file system technology.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Lufkin, Texas, charges that the Sun ZFS technology infringes on seven NetApp patents pertaining to data processing systems and related software.
Dave Hitz, NetApps's founder and executive vice president, said the lawsuit was filed largely because Sun 18 months ago "aggressively demanded" cross-licensing fees related to the Write Anywhere File Layout (WAFL) file-system technology included in ZFS. Hitz said the cross-licensing talks were halted in April after Sun claimed that NetApp's use of WAFL infringed on Sun patents.
"Those discussions obviously went nowhere and basically fell silent," he said. "By that time, [the ZFS file system] was in the public domain. They started this discussion by asserting we infringed on their patents and asked us to pay them royalties on their patents." Earlier this year, Sun released the ZFS source code, part of its Solaris operating system, to the open source community, Hitz noted.
Sun declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Hitz said that during its negotiations, Sun did not specify which NetApp products infringed on its patents. However, he noted that Sun did say that most of those patents were gained through its $4.1 billion acquisition of Storage Technology Corp. in 2005.
NetApp has no plans to assert any claims against its own customers or Sun's customers in regards to ZFS or other patent infringement. While Hitz acknowledged that the lawsuit could have implications for the future of ZFS, he declined to elaborate on specific outcomes.
So who is suing whom? This looks like a pissing match between Sun and Netapp more than anything else. Sun threatens NetApp. NetApp counters by suing Sun. This bull shit will lead to an out-of-court settlement.
ZFS is too large for the desktop imo. I think it will be part of Apple's server strategy with the clients accessing the file system. I don't think it will be restricted to read-only. HFS+ in it's current incarnation is quite sufficient for the desktop. I fail to see any areas where it is crippling the advancement of the Mac OS.
Developers receiving the latest ZFS preview, however, are granted access to full read and write capabilities under Leopard, including the ability to create and destruct ZFS pools and filesystems.
Read Write are already supported. It is a matter of getting the legal issues cleared up and implementing ZFS and building the frameworks or adding ZFS to the frameworks. A flip of the switch and it can take over for HFS+ (or HFSX+), and then people can begin to use its' special features. 6 months to a year, depending on what Apple has already done, and what the open source crowd has or will do and when.
Ty