Whoa. (Or Apple hires BFS creator)

Jump to First Reply
synsyn
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
<a href="http://theregus.com/content/4/24485.html"; target="_blank">http://theregus.com/content/4/24485.html</a>;



The guy has been working at Apple for a week now. I'm very excited to see Apple is serious about its FS... This will surely bring us journaling, instant finds, queries, node-watching, and especially enhanced meta-data.



Perhaps the best news so far this year.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Apple's been hiring lots of great talent lately. Hopefully the fruits of their labor show up soon in OS X. I figure a year or so is enough time to see their influence.



    I forget his name, but Apple recently hired a Unix guru to help with OS X development. Very cool that Apple is seeking out extraordinary talent.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 7
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]I forget his name, but Apple recently hired a Unix guru to help with OS X development. Very cool that Apple is seeking out extraordinary talent.<hr></blockquote>

    He's Jordan Hubbard. Basically lead FreeBSD wrangler. And he had to beg Apple for job. Doing the Darwin/FreeBSD 4.4 synch for 10.2.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 7
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Mmmmm... HFS++



    There's a short discussion at 'NN too. Millennium made a good post in response to "So what is wrong with HSF+?" [quote]One, as people have said here, it's fragile.

    Two, it's slow. Really slow. It's great at file lookups, but everything else is abysmal performance-wise, because the structure has to be single-threaded.



    There are many good things about HFS+. It has some of the greatest usability features out there, perhaps the greatest being the one thing basically unique to it, and the one which no one ever sees: unique file ID's independent of the filename. But it has some severe flaws in other areas. With luck, this guy can write a filesystem that can change all that.



    As for the backward-compatibility issue: Yes, nondestructive conversion would be a Really Nice Thing. But I don't think it's a necessity. HFS+ required a reformat, and no one complained about this. Yes, I know Alsoft came out with a utility to nondestructively convert; this is besides the point, as Apple never used it and you had to pay for it anyway. My message to people making this new system (HFS-3?): Make it backward-compatible if you can, but don't feel chained to it. And for the love of God, keep those unique file ID's!<hr></blockquote>



    [ 03-30-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 7
    mac the forkmac the fork Posts: 722member
    Although I'm a big proponent of FAT32, I welcome this guy. Be's file system kicks arse. Lots of Be stuff kicks.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 7
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 7
    mac the forkmac the fork Posts: 722member
    Of course not. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 7
    stimulistimuli Posts: 564member
    If apple do have a new filesystem that requires a reformat, it better darn well be a 'dream FS'. Reducing the minimum block size isn't a reason to upgrade to a non-backwards compatible FS.



    Journalling, speed, threading, guaranteed IO throughput (media)...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.