XFS on OS X 64?

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Does anyone expect to see apple implement XFS on OS X? I see the 64 bit version of OS X (for the 970) as a great time to implement a more modern file system. My company recently switched to XFS-based Linux file servers and the performance increase has been dramatic. It would make sense for Apple to do this given their dedication to open standards as well as XFS's benefits for handling large media files.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    I'm not sure if expect is the right word, but certainly Apple has a lot of options as far as filesystem support, courtesy of VFS (Virtual File System).



    I'm guessing they could implement XFS fairly straightforwardly if they so chose. If you think they should, send feedback.
  • Reply 2 of 22
    Well, they hired the guy who designed most of Be's file system, so my guess is no. But, since they have OS X now, there's no reason why they have to use just one filesystem.



    But then again, a lot of Mac OS X software won't even run of UFS. I'm not sure how much Apple's vendors know or care about supporting multiple filesystems. Maybe for Mac OS X Server, but I don't see them switching away from HFS+ for quite a while.
  • Reply 3 of 22
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    I don't expect Apple to use XFS because they would either have to license it from SGI or rewrite it from scratch. XFS is many man-years of code, so rewriting it is pretty expensive. At least Mac apps would run OK on XFS since it supports types, creators, and resource forks.



    I think it's more likely that Dominic will write a simpler (BFS-style) new filesystem.
  • Reply 4 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by Gizzmonic:

    <strong>

    But then again, a lot of Mac OS X software won't even run of UFS. I'm not sure how much Apple's vendors know or care about supporting multiple filesystems. Maybe for Mac OS X Server, but I don't see them switching away from HFS+ for quite a while.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was under the impression that the reason software breaks on UFS was because the links to files inside of the packages aren't always case sensitive. Developers need to be a little less sloppy, and it would work fine - assuming this is why.
  • Reply 5 of 22
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    [quote]Originally posted by wmf:

    <strong>I don't expect Apple to use XFS because they would either have to license it from SGI or rewrite it from scratch. XFS is many man-years of code, so rewriting it is pretty expensive. At least Mac apps would run OK on XFS since it supports types, creators, and resource forks.



    I think it's more likely that Dominic will write a simpler (BFS-style) new filesystem.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Isn't XFS the linux files system?



    ---------



    Apple will probably move to UFS in years to come. At the moment this is impossible, as UFS doesn't support resource forks. DEATH TO THE RESOURCE FORKS!



    Barto
  • Reply 6 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by Barto:

    <strong>



    Isn't XFS the linux files system?



    ---------



    Apple will probably move to UFS in years to come. At the moment this is impossible, as UFS doesn't support resource forks. DEATH TO THE RESOURCE FORKS!



    Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Hey, resource forks are good for a lot of things. For example, I like being able to paste a custom icon on any file, or to be able to set what app a file will open with on a file-by-file basis. Those are things that use the resource fork, and there's nothing wrong with it.



    The case where the resource forks shouldn't be used is when storing vital data that you don't want to lose when a file is transferred cross-platform. Then, you shouldn't use a resource fork. But non-essential things like custom icons are fine and contribute to the Mac experience.
  • Reply 7 of 22
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Barto:

    <strong>



    Isn't XFS the linux files system?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No more than Ext2, Ext3, Reiser, UFS, and others. I always have to throw my vote in for Reiser because he went to Berkeley...
  • Reply 8 of 22
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    [quote]Originally posted by CharlesS:

    <strong>

    Hey, resource forks are good for a lot of things. For example, I like being able to paste a custom icon on any file, or to be able to set what app a file will open with on a file-by-file basis. Those are things that use the resource fork, and there's nothing wrong with it.



    The case where the resource forks shouldn't be used is when storing vital data that you don't want to lose when a file is transferred cross-platform. Then, you shouldn't use a resource fork. But non-essential things like custom icons are fine and contribute to the Mac experience.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    File-by-file isn't resource forks, it's type and creator data. What you want is to throw away the portability and interoperability of Mac OS X. Which is BAD.



    Barto
  • Reply 9 of 22
    [quote]What you want is to throw away the portability and interoperability of Mac OS X. Which is BAD.<hr></blockquote>



    If Apple can implement a solid user-centric system with lowest common denominator file systems, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, I don't see the sense in eliminating useful features in the pursuit of being able to talk with a coelacanth.



    (I'm glad I remembered that thing ).
  • Reply 10 of 22
    tkntkn Posts: 224member
    Now how about releasing a Windows driver as well so I can use my drive with both. It sucks to have to format my external drives as FAT as the lowest common denominator.
  • Reply 11 of 22
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    UFS is ancient and slow; it makes no sense for Apple to switch to it.
  • Reply 12 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by wmf:

    <strong>UFS is ancient and slow; it makes no sense for Apple to switch to it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple's current implementation of UFS may be out-of-date and slow, but this is definitely not true for current implementations (as in FreeBSD).



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 13 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>

    No more than Ext2, Ext3, Reiser, UFS, and others. I always have to throw my vote in for Reiser because he went to Berkeley...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    UFS would probably not really be on that list - at least last time I checked, Linux' UFS support was not very functional (writing to UFS is still "experimental") nor up-to-date (softupdates not implemented etc.)



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 14 of 22
    [quote] I don't expect Apple to use XFS because they would either have to license it from SGI or rewrite it from scratch. XFS is many man-years of code, so rewriting it is pretty expensive. At least Mac apps would run OK on XFS since it supports types, creators, and resource forks.



    I think it's more likely that Dominic will write a simpler (BFS-style) new filesystem. <hr></blockquote>



    XFS is open source. Thus linux can use it. The only reason to not switch to a FS that RoxXors like XFS/reiserfs is stability issues. I've heard XFS has some (maybe just on PPC?) and so does ReiserFS (or did, tho' again perhaps on PPC). Imagine getting substantially better HD performance with your existing drive/mobo.



    With time HFS+ will really start to hold Apple hardware back performance wise.



    [ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: 1337_5L4Xx0R ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 22
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    [quote]Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R:

    <strong>XFS is open source.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    XFS is GPL; Darwin is APSL. GPL and APSL do not mix.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    [quote]Originally posted by wmf:

    <strong>



    XFS is GPL; Darwin is APSL. GPL and APSL do not mix.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple can either



    1) Using the GPL source, write their own APSL implementation



    or



    2) Distribute the Apple VFS plug-in as GPL



    Barto
  • Reply 17 of 22
    [quote]

    XFS is GPL; Darwin is APSL. GPL and APSL do not mix. <hr></blockquote>



    Uhhh.... Safari? GCC3? Apple doesn't have to GPL OSX to use GPL software.
  • Reply 18 of 22
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    [quote]Originally posted by TKN:

    <strong>Now how about releasing a Windows driver as well so I can use my drive with both. It sucks to have to format my external drives as FAT as the lowest common denominator.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You mean NTFS instead of Windows, right?



    Last time I checked, Microsoft didn't provide any public NTFS specification for 3rd party OS'es.



    As to FAT32, OS X does that.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    [quote]Originally posted by Barto:

    <strong>



    Apple can either



    1) Using the GPL source, write their own APSL implementation</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That would violate the GPL license.



    [quote]Originally posted by Barto:

    <strong>2) Distribute the Apple VFS plug-in as GPL



    Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>



    They could do that, but probably wouldn't love to.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    [quote]Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R:

    <strong>



    Uhhh.... Safari? GCC3? Apple doesn't have to GPL OSX to use GPL software.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Safari's (or, rather, WebCore's) KHTML / KJS base is LGPL, not GPL, the difference being that you can implement LPGL libraries into your app without having to open source the whole app (they wouldn't have wanted to open source Safari). With GPL, you need to publicise every change you do around the GPL'ed code.



    That's what they're doing with GCC3, btw.
Sign In or Register to comment.