Just ask Microsoft. They still haven't delivered their new SQL Server-derived filesystem after how many years?
There is no, and never has been, a "SQL Server-derived filesystem". WinFS is not a filesystem. It sits on top of NTFS, but NTFS was still going to be the filesystem.
I really liked the tabs on top. The issues with them that people have described never once happened to me. I was hoping to see them become part of the interface guidelines going forward and appear in many more places across the OS and third party apps..
Well, this, pardon me, sucks bigtime. Last year it sounded as if we'd have stable ZFS on Snow Leopard (client). Now I'm not so sure anymore.
It's semi-BS that ZFS isn't worth it without multiple disks. You get checksumming, know exactly what files are broken if any, built-in compression, and SNAPSHOTS. I was planning on taking frequent snapshots and using zfs send | recv to my (also planned) FreeBSD server to take frequent snapshots and backups of my home partition.
Two Thoughts: 1.) ZFS was hot at Apple 3 years ago. However, the guy who was driving it is not with Apple anymore! Was it too difficult to switchover on a consumer product or did Apple lose interest to do it? (For whatever reason..)
2.) ZFS on a Mac means your data is protected and you would never run out of disk space. So no need for a Drobo on a Mac!
Bummer about losing tabs on top, that was the only feature that was a noticable improvement to me.
Sure some people don't like it - so make it a preference. And if it was tweaky, then fix the issues7, don't just throw it away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WorldNet
Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).
I'm still running the beta (no reboot yet) but I still have that button, it was just moved to the right side of the address bar. One problem I do have is that command period no longer stops loading a page. Still listed in the menu, not sure why it no longer works.
I'm just contemplating out loud a little here - but in the end, ZFS could still ship in Snow Leopard or at a later date. Oracle's recent aquisition of Sun included a LOT of technology, from java to sparc chips to ZFS - there's THOUSANDS of patents that just changed hands. M&A activities list this usually just wind up delaying things even if there's no strategic barrier to market.
Just my 2 spacebucks.
Dave
Um.... why hasn't anyone mentioned that Sun is getting sued by NetApp for patent infringement for ZFS-related technology?
Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).
NEVER take away a feature that has been there for the users to get used to.
It appears to the right of the url once the page has loaded. While the page is loading, it turns into an X for "stop loading." So, it's been moved/redesigned, not gone. I gather by all the posts about reloading via the menu that some people have not picked up on this.
<b>Taking away the Safari tabs on top is a huge loss to many consumers.</b>
Reallly? How?
<b>Tabs on top was really nice. Especially for 1024x600 displays. You know what I mean.</b>
No. We really don't. What Mac in the last 5 years had a 600 pixel height display?
<b>Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).</b>
You *do* know that the reload button is there in the right edge of the address bar.
<b>ZFS on a Mac means your data is protected and you would never run out of disk space. So no need for a Drobo on a Mac!</b>
No, it really doesn't.
It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation.
For example:
1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?
With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?
2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?
3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?
4) ZFS is expensive for small files.
5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.
B<b>Taking away the Safari tabs on top is a huge loss to many consumers.</b>
Reallly? How?
<b>Tabs on top was really nice. Especially for 1024x600 displays. You know what I mean.</b>
No. We really don't. What Mac in the last 5 years had a 600 pixel height display?
Useful to me with a 13? MB. I need all vertical screen real estate I can get. Yes, I keep my Dock on the side for this very reason. Windows has Safari and many netbooks, which the 600px height, run Windows AND Mac OS X. I have not updated Safari from the beta simply because the option is no longer available to me. The ones that prefer the feature are not stating that it should be default or the only option, but simply that it should be an option as many not only like it, but prefer it.
Although ZFS has been around for almost five years at Sun, sometimes it's
still treated as a research project.
E.g. to answer (real or perceived) threats from storage competitors like NetApp,
Sun is now playing with de-duplication, a marketing checkbox item for some,
but for others like ZFS principal Jeff Bonwick a thing to get right (i.e. done at the
block level). There is still an unresolved Sun/NetApp patent lawsuit which
may be taking Apple hostage, even though (old) Sun indemnifies ZFS users
against patent trolls.
As well, others are still experimenting with checksum methods, not only for
various time/space tradeoffs but to address potential mathematical flaws in
the mappings. Apple would have to carry around all the experimental baggage
for the sake of compatibility if they rolled it out now.
Other bits: compression methods are overrated since the stuff taking up the
most space (video, photos, and audio) are already compressed. Further, Apple
may still be working on an in-place HFS+ to ZFS converter for the masses, now
made more complicated by new choices.
Lastly, I always (mistakenly) thought that Apple was going to expand into enterprise
server land via purchase of Sun, a make-vs.-buy decision which they could have
done with a fraction of their cash horde. Now we've seen that Sun's customer lists
are more valuable to Oracle than others, and that Apple has minimized the use
of Java for their gear. Apple remains the highest-volume shipper of Unix.
To me, it is amazing to see them do this via clever layering to keep their goodies
from disturbing the various NIH-syndrome components they utilize.
Thank you, tidbits or not this was valuable information. I assume then that you think that the takeover by Oracle is not the reason for dropping all mention of ZFS in SL?
I'm sorry that AppleInsider elected to lump together a minor UI issue regarding Safari tabs to the apparent cancellation of ZFS support. I know passions can run high about whether tabs are at the top or bottom, but in the big scope of things, that just does not compare in magnitude to the loss of ZFS.
Completely agree. ZFS on SL Server was progressing very well according to the SourceForge discussions.
The reason for deleting all mention of it simply cannot be that it isn't ready even as an option. Some Mac users are using it right now. So whatever has happened I would guess that it has to do with licensing issues, and Oracle.
ZFS is a huge thing for the Mac ? and trying to talk it down as something not really needed is just absurd. Multiple drives and Terabyte drives are common now. To have a better file system as standard in two years time a replacement needs to be made an option now. A file system isn't icing on the cake ? it is bread and butter. Testing it means getting it out there to greater numbers of users.
This is the worst Mac news that I have heard in months.
It's been in the pre-release builds of 10.6 (Snow Leopard) OS X Server for months and had been touted as a feature with speculation that it would migrate into the client OS in 10.7. Many of us have been waiting for it for over two years when the first versions started showing up in Leopard.
I've never tried it. I'm just an ignorant yahoo who gets all worked up about feature/benefit lists and buzzwords on web pages.
Oh, wait... That's not right. Now I remember. I've used ZFS under OpenSolaris to get familiar with the technology, concepts, and administration. I've read whitepapers from Sun on it, technical articles on it, and seen many of the Sun presentations and videos on the technology. I've been researching what it would take, cost-wise, to put together an OpenSolaris, hot-swappable, ZFS external array of SATA drives that ran over gigabit Ethernet. It's all come back to me now.
Perhaps you could work on reducing the condescension in your posts and I could try to back off on the sarcasm in my replies. Deal?
It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation.
LOL And you know this how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
For example:
1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?
With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?
2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?
3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?
4) ZFS is expensive for small files.
5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.
I have certainly read Drew Thaler's opinion in multiple places now ? I assume that that is you ? and have grown tired of the tone of know-it-all condescension. Particularly when he just resolutely fails to engage with those who use ZFS on a daily basis and have nothing but praise for it.
Maybe clueless bloggers have taken a page from the book of those clueless journalists that you mention. I wouldn't know ? I stopped reading either long ago.
Oh man, big step backwards - hack will come soon I'm sure. Keeping the beta as long as possible. Stop reload should have been located where the + buton was. Wish they would use tab on top for Finder too.
Yes, your explanation was very helpful. Your intellect shines through. Of course, giving users a choice is a horrible thing as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321
Tabs do NOT belong on top. Thank GOD that Apple put them back where they belong.
Anybody who thinks that tabs "were just fine" on top doesn't really use tabs and doesn't really understand why putting them on top was a horrible horrible horrible mistake and problem.
Thank God SOMEBODY at Apple is actually paying attention. Unlike the people at Apple who removed the ExpressCard slot from their 15" MacBook Pro.
<b>ZFS on a Mac means your data is protected and you would never run out of disk space. So no need for a Drobo on a Mac!</b>
No, it really doesn't.
Yes, it really does, provided that you intelligently upgrade your drive pool -- something made more attractive by falling drive prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation."
I know far more about it than you do. So do many other people. So perhaps you should back off rather than paraphrasing stuff you read on a blog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?
And Time Machine does not? Please! When terabyte hard drives can be had for $80, most of us are not too concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?
Yes. I have a Mac Pro with 4.3TB of storage. You worry about your systems and I'll take care of mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?
Did you know that I have 8 Xeon CPU cores running at 2.8ghz -- so I don't care? Do you know that others are much more concerned with data integrity rather than speed? Frankly, the average modern Mac CPU spends most of its time twiddling its thumbs now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?
Did you know that I have 16GB of ECC RAM -- so I don't care? Again, many of us are fully aware of the requirements and overhead and
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
4) ZFS is expensive for small files.
Then that does it. To hell with data integrity, fault tolerance, and the ability to expand a storage pool. Seriously, though, that's a weak criticism now, given the expansion of average file sizes coupled with the plummeting price of storage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs
5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.
I've got four SATA bays in my Mac Pro. I don't find myself opening the cabinet and yanking out drives very frequently.
That you do not recognize the seriousness of the loss of ZFS and the real-world benefits that so many would have realized, is a poor reflection on you -- not on the people you're addressing so condescendingly.
Comments
NEVER take away a feature that has been there for the users to get used to.
Just ask Microsoft. They still haven't delivered their new SQL Server-derived filesystem after how many years?
There is no, and never has been, a "SQL Server-derived filesystem". WinFS is not a filesystem. It sits on top of NTFS, but NTFS was still going to be the filesystem.
And still no sorting of the bookmarks !
www.delicious.com
It's infinitely more useful than bookmarks in your browser.
Well, this, pardon me, sucks bigtime. Last year it sounded as if we'd have stable ZFS on Snow Leopard (client). Now I'm not so sure anymore.
It's semi-BS that ZFS isn't worth it without multiple disks. You get checksumming, know exactly what files are broken if any, built-in compression, and SNAPSHOTS. I was planning on taking frequent snapshots and using zfs send | recv to my (also planned) FreeBSD server to take frequent snapshots and backups of my home partition.
Two Thoughts: 1.) ZFS was hot at Apple 3 years ago. However, the guy who was driving it is not with Apple anymore! Was it too difficult to switchover on a consumer product or did Apple lose interest to do it? (For whatever reason..)
2.) ZFS on a Mac means your data is protected and you would never run out of disk space. So no need for a Drobo on a Mac!
Sure some people don't like it - so make it a preference. And if it was tweaky, then fix the issues7, don't just throw it away.
Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).
I'm still running the beta (no reboot yet) but I still have that button, it was just moved to the right side of the address bar. One problem I do have is that command period no longer stops loading a page. Still listed in the menu, not sure why it no longer works.
I'm just contemplating out loud a little here - but in the end, ZFS could still ship in Snow Leopard or at a later date. Oracle's recent aquisition of Sun included a LOT of technology, from java to sparc chips to ZFS - there's THOUSANDS of patents that just changed hands. M&A activities list this usually just wind up delaying things even if there's no strategic barrier to market.
Just my 2 spacebucks.
Dave
Um.... why hasn't anyone mentioned that Sun is getting sued by NetApp for patent infringement for ZFS-related technology?
see http://bit.ly/XApvK
Seems like that would be a good reason to leave ZFS out of the operating system, no?
Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).
NEVER take away a feature that has been there for the users to get used to.
It appears to the right of the url once the page has loaded. While the page is loading, it turns into an X for "stop loading." So, it's been moved/redesigned, not gone. I gather by all the posts about reloading via the menu that some people have not picked up on this.
<b>Taking away the Safari tabs on top is a huge loss to many consumers.</b>
Reallly? How?
<b>Tabs on top was really nice. Especially for 1024x600 displays. You know what I mean.</b>
No. We really don't. What Mac in the last 5 years had a 600 pixel height display?
<b>Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).</b>
You *do* know that the reload button is there in the right edge of the address bar.
<b>ZFS on a Mac means your data is protected and you would never run out of disk space. So no need for a Drobo on a Mac!</b>
No, it really doesn't.
It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation.
For example:
1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?
With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?
2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?
3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?
4) ZFS is expensive for small files.
5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.
http://drewthaler.blogspot.com/2007/...ter-redux.html
B<b>Taking away the Safari tabs on top is a huge loss to many consumers.</b>
Reallly? How?
<b>Tabs on top was really nice. Especially for 1024x600 displays. You know what I mean.</b>
No. We really don't. What Mac in the last 5 years had a 600 pixel height display?
Useful to me with a 13? MB. I need all vertical screen real estate I can get. Yes, I keep my Dock on the side for this very reason. Windows has Safari and many netbooks, which the 600px height, run Windows AND Mac OS X. I have not updated Safari from the beta simply because the option is no longer available to me. The ones that prefer the feature are not stating that it should be default or the only option, but simply that it should be an option as many not only like it, but prefer it.
Although ZFS has been around for almost five years at Sun, sometimes it's
still treated as a research project.
E.g. to answer (real or perceived) threats from storage competitors like NetApp,
Sun is now playing with de-duplication, a marketing checkbox item for some,
but for others like ZFS principal Jeff Bonwick a thing to get right (i.e. done at the
block level). There is still an unresolved Sun/NetApp patent lawsuit which
may be taking Apple hostage, even though (old) Sun indemnifies ZFS users
against patent trolls.
As well, others are still experimenting with checksum methods, not only for
various time/space tradeoffs but to address potential mathematical flaws in
the mappings. Apple would have to carry around all the experimental baggage
for the sake of compatibility if they rolled it out now.
Other bits: compression methods are overrated since the stuff taking up the
most space (video, photos, and audio) are already compressed. Further, Apple
may still be working on an in-place HFS+ to ZFS converter for the masses, now
made more complicated by new choices.
Lastly, I always (mistakenly) thought that Apple was going to expand into enterprise
server land via purchase of Sun, a make-vs.-buy decision which they could have
done with a fraction of their cash horde. Now we've seen that Sun's customer lists
are more valuable to Oracle than others, and that Apple has minimized the use
of Java for their gear. Apple remains the highest-volume shipper of Unix.
To me, it is amazing to see them do this via clever layering to keep their goodies
from disturbing the various NIH-syndrome components they utilize.
Thank you, tidbits or not this was valuable information. I assume then that you think that the takeover by Oracle is not the reason for dropping all mention of ZFS in SL?
I'm sorry that AppleInsider elected to lump together a minor UI issue regarding Safari tabs to the apparent cancellation of ZFS support. I know passions can run high about whether tabs are at the top or bottom, but in the big scope of things, that just does not compare in magnitude to the loss of ZFS.
Completely agree. ZFS on SL Server was progressing very well according to the SourceForge discussions.
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/
The reason for deleting all mention of it simply cannot be that it isn't ready even as an option. Some Mac users are using it right now. So whatever has happened I would guess that it has to do with licensing issues, and Oracle.
ZFS is a huge thing for the Mac ? and trying to talk it down as something not really needed is just absurd. Multiple drives and Terabyte drives are common now. To have a better file system as standard in two years time a replacement needs to be made an option now. A file system isn't icing on the cake ? it is bread and butter. Testing it means getting it out there to greater numbers of users.
This is the worst Mac news that I have heard in months.
It's been in the pre-release builds of 10.6 (Snow Leopard) OS X Server for months and had been touted as a feature with speculation that it would migrate into the client OS in 10.7. Many of us have been waiting for it for over two years when the first versions started showing up in Leopard.
I've never tried it. I'm just an ignorant yahoo who gets all worked up about feature/benefit lists and buzzwords on web pages.
Oh, wait... That's not right. Now I remember. I've used ZFS under OpenSolaris to get familiar with the technology, concepts, and administration. I've read whitepapers from Sun on it, technical articles on it, and seen many of the Sun presentations and videos on the technology. I've been researching what it would take, cost-wise, to put together an OpenSolaris, hot-swappable, ZFS external array of SATA drives that ran over gigabit Ethernet. It's all come back to me now.
Perhaps you could work on reducing the condescension in your posts and I could try to back off on the sarcasm in my replies. Deal?
You took the words out of my mouth.
It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation.
LOL And you know this how?
For example:
1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?
With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?
2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?
3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?
4) ZFS is expensive for small files.
5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.
http://drewthaler.blogspot.com/2007/...ter-redux.html
I have certainly read Drew Thaler's opinion in multiple places now ? I assume that that is you ? and have grown tired of the tone of know-it-all condescension. Particularly when he just resolutely fails to engage with those who use ZFS on a daily basis and have nothing but praise for it.
Maybe clueless bloggers have taken a page from the book of those clueless journalists that you mention. I wouldn't know ? I stopped reading either long ago.
Tabs do NOT belong on top. Thank GOD that Apple put them back where they belong.
Anybody who thinks that tabs "were just fine" on top doesn't really use tabs and doesn't really understand why putting them on top was a horrible horrible horrible mistake and problem.
Thank God SOMEBODY at Apple is actually paying attention. Unlike the people at Apple who removed the ExpressCard slot from their 15" MacBook Pro.
<b>ZFS on a Mac means your data is protected and you would never run out of disk space. So no need for a Drobo on a Mac!</b>
No, it really doesn't.
Yes, it really does, provided that you intelligently upgrade your drive pool -- something made more attractive by falling drive prices.
It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation."
I know far more about it than you do. So do many other people. So perhaps you should back off rather than paraphrasing stuff you read on a blog.
1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?
And Time Machine does not? Please! When terabyte hard drives can be had for $80, most of us are not too concerned.
With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?
Yes. I have a Mac Pro with 4.3TB of storage. You worry about your systems and I'll take care of mine.
2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?
Did you know that I have 8 Xeon CPU cores running at 2.8ghz -- so I don't care? Do you know that others are much more concerned with data integrity rather than speed? Frankly, the average modern Mac CPU spends most of its time twiddling its thumbs now.
3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?
Did you know that I have 16GB of ECC RAM -- so I don't care? Again, many of us are fully aware of the requirements and overhead and
4) ZFS is expensive for small files.
Then that does it. To hell with data integrity, fault tolerance, and the ability to expand a storage pool. Seriously, though, that's a weak criticism now, given the expansion of average file sizes coupled with the plummeting price of storage.
5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.
I've got four SATA bays in my Mac Pro. I don't find myself opening the cabinet and yanking out drives very frequently.
That you do not recognize the seriousness of the loss of ZFS and the real-world benefits that so many would have realized, is a poor reflection on you -- not on the people you're addressing so condescendingly.