I highly doubt the file system is what keeps IT people away.
Probably more to do with all their MSCE accreditations, surf the web job, etc. Yeah, and change is really hard for most people.
The mistake was made back in the John Scully days. Thus allowing Microsoft to pretty much go unchallenged and establish itself and it's standards in the industry.
You don't become head of Pepsi and take market share from Coke unless your a real treacherous SOB.
It's already odd enough Apple participated in ZFS development. ZFS has nothing to do with small home entertainment & leisure systems. It targets clusters and networks, so Oracle are obviously right guys to pick it up now.
On the other hand, this may mean Apple abandon for ever any initiatives to step seriously in the corporate segment of IT.
The patent issue(s) would seem to be a non-issue according to the terms of the CDDL which ZFS is licensed under:
Somehow I have a really strong feeling that if someone wants to sue someone else then some silly words in a license agreement are NOT going to stop them. ESPECIALLY when ONE or more of the parties had no participation in (the license) to begin with. I mean seriously, what exactly would the Apple lawyers do?! Hold up this piece of paper and say 'HEY WAIT THEY CAN'T SUE US' it says so right here.
What saddens me most is I've been running ZFS on my Mac for about 5/6 months now and its seriously kickass stuff, even at the early stage of the code (and no GUI support). I'm certainly gonna miss it now that the door is officially closed on the project.
However I might be tempted to build a Solaris or BSD box and transfer my file services over.
It's already odd enough Apple participated in ZFS development. ZFS has nothing to do with small home entertainment & leisure systems. It targets clusters and networks, so Oracle are obviously right guys to pick it up now.
On the other hand, this may mean Apple abandon for ever any initiatives to step seriously in the corporate segment of IT.
All had to do with PPC, once the processor industry hit the thermal wall, that was it.
IBM bailed and that was that.
No use going with ZFS if your not selling any hardware better than Intel.
As disappointed in this news as I am, we really don't have enough information about the goals of the zfs project to make a judgment about its application. Between 10.5 and 10.6 those fs needs have probably changed due to what I read on MacRumors forums in the same discussion. Due to Google's Chrome OS, OS developers are rethinking/retargeting development. I think inside Apple there has been a re-evaluation of their fs needs. Apple has 2 kinds of needs, 1.) their own iTunes and App Store that needs mass servers, and 2.) the fs needs of the basic Mac a single person has. ZFS may have become an internal project only, used just for Apple servers to provide the services they need. The development of ZFS, however, may have imparted knowledge on ways to streamline and simplify HFS+, making it a modern fs. Combine that with cloud services, the end user like me gets the snapshot, redundancy, and efficiency feature of ZFS without having to worry about the transition, and Apple gets its online services problem solve through pooled storage. I think the line of prototype thought I'm promoting is a possible explanation, but
The patent issue(s) would seem to be a non-issue according to the terms of the CDDL which ZFS is licensed under:
So, as far as Apple is concerned, NetApp wouldn't have any judicial standing suing Apple for using ZFS, they'd have to go after Sun or Oracle (once the acquisition is complete). Yes, any court decisions could affect Apple downstream in the long run, but this could be the case for any GPL, BSD, or other Open Source software or libraries used by Apple and others. It's a known and accepted risk of doing business in the software world today and is the primary reason why software patents need to be voided in general. This is why Linux supports so many filesystems out of the box - there is always a fallback with a relatively painless migration path in case of an issue - legal or technical-wise.
Apple shouldn't be so hast in their decision, ZFS is still a great file system especially from a storage perspective with its inherit robustness and disaster recovery capabilities. NTFS and HFS(+) do not nearly compare with ZFS's feature set.
However, I don't understand why Apple doesn't just adopt ext2/3 like just about every other Linux system out there or UFS1/2 like the BSDs if they want to be more like them architecturally-wise. Of course it really wouldn't matter what they used if they adopted Fuse in the first place.
I would imagine that Apple's large legal team, with a lot of experience in this area, knows what it's doing. They also have access to real experts in the area to ask advice from where they may need it.
Our speculation about whether or not, legally, this is a good idea is really a waste of time.
We can bemoan its disappearance from Apples' plate, as I do also, but they are obviously the best judge as to why it had to be done.
No. Answers for what keep IT people away from apple could include but are not limited to:
You forgot the childish cloak and dagger way they deal with hardware and software roadmaps. Sure it's okay to do that for us in the peanut gallery but corporations need to know as FAR in advance as possible what will be coming out (when it comes to products that would impact THEIR business).
- OS X (client / server) YES
- Xserver YES
- ARA YES
- iPhone YES
- Hardware iMacs / Mac Pros / Laptops etc YES
- Previously unknown hardware (tablet) YES
- AppleTV no
- iLife... no
- iPods no
Apple (well the Apple I knew from a few years ago) was just as cat and mouse when it came to their roadmaps as they are with developers as the are with the public... They are a joke in the eyes of many IT managers.
They also cancelled the "make-a-real-mouse" project.
This is a pity, ZFS looked promising for Apple. It's not the worst thing Apple has done lately though, not adding an SSD option for the new iMac took the biscuit. People who defend Apple on this need to seriously take a loot at their fanboy status. The word is: OPTIONAL!!!
It's not exactly specific to this thread, but now I shall take a look at adding an SSD to my 24" iMac. I'm doing it this time for definite.
Intel hasn't exactly launched the Postville X-25 series smoothly. Production issues have hampered delivery schedules and that's likely a reason why they aren't being OEM'd by larger vendors who can't afford late delivery on a SSD to hold up a sale. Let us know how your SSD improves performance. I'm not buying a new Mac without going SSD personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MShock
As disappointed in this news as I am, we really don't have enough information about the goals of the zfs project to make a judgment about its application. Between 10.5 and 10.6 those fs needs have probably changed due to what I read on MacRumors forums in the same discussion. Due to Google's Chrome OS, OS developers are rethinking/retargeting development. I think inside Apple there has been a re-evaluation of their fs needs. Apple has 2 kinds of needs, 1.) their own iTunes and App Store that needs mass servers, and 2.) the fs needs of the basic Mac a single person has. ZFS may have become an internal project only, used just for Apple servers to provide the services they need. The development of ZFS, however, may have imparted knowledge on ways to streamline and simplify HFS+, making it a modern fs. Combine that with cloud services, the end user like me gets the snapshot, redundancy, and efficiency feature of ZFS without having to worry about the transition, and Apple gets its online services problem solve through pooled storage. I think the line of prototype thought I'm promoting is a possible explanation, but
I agree with this. Apple's needs are actually divergent from the needs of companies that can really benefit from ZFS. Apple could benefit from a filesystem that is well balanced between lightweight and fast (think portable applications) yet delivers the security (encryption) and metadata and checksumming features needed for their consumer focus. I think they looked at ZFS and then probably decided they'd keep working on their own solution. I'd be shocked if they don't have something out by 10.7. It's not like they stopped work on their homegrown fs to take on ZFS.
The patent issue(s) would seem to be a non-issue according to the terms of the CDDL which ZFS is licensed under
...
So, as far as Apple is concerned, NetApp wouldn't have any judicial standing suing Apple for using ZFS, they'd have to go after Sun or Oracle (once the acquisition is complete)
You are misinterpreting the license. CDDL offers no such protection (nor could it ever).
The CDDL is saying "if you use this software in your products, (1) we promise not to enforce our patents on you, and (2) you must promise the same for others who use it." This means if Apple uses ZFS in a product, Sun/Oracle cannot sue Apple, and Apple cannot sue other users of ZFS.
Since NetApp is not using ZFS code themselves, the license does not apply to them. NetApp would be free to sue Apple directly, and Sun/Oracle would not be obligated to defend Apple in any way. (Sun does however, indemnify its own server customers from patent litigation.)
Somehow I don't think ZFS would even begin to RIGHT all the WRONGS Apple is famous/infamous for in the IT circles.
Ummm... OK, Apple gained little success in network administration circles, that's right. Yet Apple used to create products, which may pass for a remedy for their reputation. Not to borrow those from someone else.
You forgot the childish cloak and dagger way they deal with hardware and software roadmaps. Sure it's okay to do that for us in the peanut gallery but corporations need to know as FAR in advance as possible what will be coming out (when it comes to products that would impact THEIR business).
Point taken, that's proably the most important reason anyone could mention. I did CMA with "not limited too" though :-p
Mea culpa! I didn't care to look through the pages with numbers greater than 5. And the system, having been ranked 282 of 500, appeared to be on 6th.
::grins::, just pointing out that *someone* was crazy enough to do it!
For what it's worth I dont believe either X nor it's mac pro based successor, G, appear on the current top500, but they do exist :-p
In general though apple hardware really isnt well suited to that environment, where they lack the density and definitely the performance/density/price to compete (and that's even getting started on software)
::grins::, just pointing out that *someone* was crazy enough to do it!
For what it's worth I dont believe either X nor it's mac pro based successor, G, appear on the current top500, but they do exist :-p
In general though apple hardware really isnt well suited to that environment, where they lack the density and definitely the performance/density/price to compete (and that's even getting started on software)
It's written in black and white there: "home-built cluster" (what we else call diminutively "home-brew"). I meant industrially useful systems.
OTOH the only reason it was possible it seems was highly subsidized hardware from apple and, I suspect, "free" power - in most large research unis that I've ever heard this come up (including where I am, at Stony Brook) power is considered part of the general university operating budget, not charged to depts.
But yeah, you're still pretty much right. No one is providing this as a commercial solution because, outside the above environment, it's utterly impractical!
I really wish Apple *would* try for that market, with their engineers and their new-found focus on parallel optimization I've a feeling theyd come up with something impressive :-(
Kinda. No, I still don't believe Apple would go in supercomputing further, than to some students' experiments. What looks more probable to me is they might have had some prospects of developing OS X Server into serious and recognized server platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Dreamed, completed and scored in the top ten for that time.
Comments
I highly doubt the file system is what keeps IT people away.
Probably more to do with all their MSCE accreditations, surf the web job, etc. Yeah, and change is really hard for most people.
The mistake was made back in the John Scully days. Thus allowing Microsoft to pretty much go unchallenged and establish itself and it's standards in the industry.
You don't become head of Pepsi and take market share from Coke unless your a real treacherous SOB.
On the other hand, this may mean Apple abandon for ever any initiatives to step seriously in the corporate segment of IT.
The patent issue(s) would seem to be a non-issue according to the terms of the CDDL which ZFS is licensed under:
Somehow I have a really strong feeling that if someone wants to sue someone else then some silly words in a license agreement are NOT going to stop them. ESPECIALLY when ONE or more of the parties had no participation in (the license) to begin with. I mean seriously, what exactly would the Apple lawyers do?! Hold up this piece of paper and say 'HEY WAIT THEY CAN'T SUE US' it says so right here.
What saddens me most is I've been running ZFS on my Mac for about 5/6 months now and its seriously kickass stuff, even at the early stage of the code (and no GUI support). I'm certainly gonna miss it now that the door is officially closed on the project.
However I might be tempted to build a Solaris or BSD box and transfer my file services over.
It's already odd enough Apple participated in ZFS development. ZFS has nothing to do with small home entertainment & leisure systems. It targets clusters and networks, so Oracle are obviously right guys to pick it up now.
On the other hand, this may mean Apple abandon for ever any initiatives to step seriously in the corporate segment of IT.
All had to do with PPC, once the processor industry hit the thermal wall, that was it.
IBM bailed and that was that.
No use going with ZFS if your not selling any hardware better than Intel.
Yep, no more Mac supercomputers.
All had to do with PPC, once the processor industry hit the thermal wall, that was it.
IBM bailed and that was that.
It's a bit unexpected then, that Apple fell in romance with ZFS after they had actually been done with PPC.
No use going with ZFS if your not selling any hardware better than Intel.
Yep, no more Mac supercomputers.
Way to go Nvidia!
The patent issue(s) would seem to be a non-issue according to the terms of the CDDL which ZFS is licensed under:
So, as far as Apple is concerned, NetApp wouldn't have any judicial standing suing Apple for using ZFS, they'd have to go after Sun or Oracle (once the acquisition is complete). Yes, any court decisions could affect Apple downstream in the long run, but this could be the case for any GPL, BSD, or other Open Source software or libraries used by Apple and others. It's a known and accepted risk of doing business in the software world today and is the primary reason why software patents need to be voided in general. This is why Linux supports so many filesystems out of the box - there is always a fallback with a relatively painless migration path in case of an issue - legal or technical-wise.
Apple shouldn't be so hast in their decision, ZFS is still a great file system especially from a storage perspective with its inherit robustness and disaster recovery capabilities. NTFS and HFS(+) do not nearly compare with ZFS's feature set.
However, I don't understand why Apple doesn't just adopt ext2/3 like just about every other Linux system out there or UFS1/2 like the BSDs if they want to be more like them architecturally-wise. Of course it really wouldn't matter what they used if they adopted Fuse in the first place.
I would imagine that Apple's large legal team, with a lot of experience in this area, knows what it's doing. They also have access to real experts in the area to ask advice from where they may need it.
Our speculation about whether or not, legally, this is a good idea is really a waste of time.
We can bemoan its disappearance from Apples' plate, as I do also, but they are obviously the best judge as to why it had to be done.
No. Answers for what keep IT people away from apple could include but are not limited to:
You forgot the childish cloak and dagger way they deal with hardware and software roadmaps. Sure it's okay to do that for us in the peanut gallery but corporations need to know as FAR in advance as possible what will be coming out (when it comes to products that would impact THEIR business).
- OS X (client / server) YES
- Xserver YES
- ARA YES
- iPhone YES
- Hardware iMacs / Mac Pros / Laptops etc YES
- Previously unknown hardware (tablet) YES
- AppleTV no
- iLife... no
- iPods no
Apple (well the Apple I knew from a few years ago) was just as cat and mouse when it came to their roadmaps as they are with developers as the are with the public... They are a joke in the eyes of many IT managers.
Apple abandon for ever any initiatives to step seriously in the corporate segment of IT.
Somehow I don't think ZFS would even begin to RIGHT all the WRONGS Apple is famous/infamous for in the IT circles.
They also cancelled the "make-a-real-mouse" project.
This is a pity, ZFS looked promising for Apple. It's not the worst thing Apple has done lately though, not adding an SSD option for the new iMac took the biscuit. People who defend Apple on this need to seriously take a loot at their fanboy status. The word is: OPTIONAL!!!
It's not exactly specific to this thread, but now I shall take a look at adding an SSD to my 24" iMac. I'm doing it this time for definite.
Intel hasn't exactly launched the Postville X-25 series smoothly. Production issues have hampered delivery schedules and that's likely a reason why they aren't being OEM'd by larger vendors who can't afford late delivery on a SSD to hold up a sale. Let us know how your SSD improves performance. I'm not buying a new Mac without going SSD personally.
As disappointed in this news as I am, we really don't have enough information about the goals of the zfs project to make a judgment about its application. Between 10.5 and 10.6 those fs needs have probably changed due to what I read on MacRumors forums in the same discussion. Due to Google's Chrome OS, OS developers are rethinking/retargeting development. I think inside Apple there has been a re-evaluation of their fs needs. Apple has 2 kinds of needs, 1.) their own iTunes and App Store that needs mass servers, and 2.) the fs needs of the basic Mac a single person has. ZFS may have become an internal project only, used just for Apple servers to provide the services they need. The development of ZFS, however, may have imparted knowledge on ways to streamline and simplify HFS+, making it a modern fs. Combine that with cloud services, the end user like me gets the snapshot, redundancy, and efficiency feature of ZFS without having to worry about the transition, and Apple gets its online services problem solve through pooled storage. I think the line of prototype thought I'm promoting is a possible explanation, but
I agree with this. Apple's needs are actually divergent from the needs of companies that can really benefit from ZFS. Apple could benefit from a filesystem that is well balanced between lightweight and fast (think portable applications) yet delivers the security (encryption) and metadata and checksumming features needed for their consumer focus. I think they looked at ZFS and then probably decided they'd keep working on their own solution. I'd be shocked if they don't have something out by 10.7. It's not like they stopped work on their homegrown fs to take on ZFS.
The patent issue(s) would seem to be a non-issue according to the terms of the CDDL which ZFS is licensed under
...
So, as far as Apple is concerned, NetApp wouldn't have any judicial standing suing Apple for using ZFS, they'd have to go after Sun or Oracle (once the acquisition is complete)
You are misinterpreting the license. CDDL offers no such protection (nor could it ever).
The CDDL is saying "if you use this software in your products, (1) we promise not to enforce our patents on you, and (2) you must promise the same for others who use it." This means if Apple uses ZFS in a product, Sun/Oracle cannot sue Apple, and Apple cannot sue other users of ZFS.
Since NetApp is not using ZFS code themselves, the license does not apply to them. NetApp would be free to sue Apple directly, and Sun/Oracle would not be obligated to defend Apple in any way. (Sun does however, indemnify its own server customers from patent litigation.)
Somehow I don't think ZFS would even begin to RIGHT all the WRONGS Apple is famous/infamous for in the IT circles.
Ummm... OK, Apple gained little success in network administration circles, that's right. Yet Apple used to create products, which may pass for a remedy for their reputation. Not to borrow those from someone else.
Thanks for info, MacTripper!
It's a bit unexpected then, that Apple fell in romance with ZFS after they had actually been done with PPC.
Way to go Nvidia!
You jest, but: System X/G - Apple and VA tech's subsidized occasional top500 supercomputer
You forgot the childish cloak and dagger way they deal with hardware and software roadmaps. Sure it's okay to do that for us in the peanut gallery but corporations need to know as FAR in advance as possible what will be coming out (when it comes to products that would impact THEIR business).
Point taken, that's proably the most important reason anyone could mention. I did CMA with "not limited too" though :-p
You jest, but: System X/G - Apple and VA tech's subsidized occasional top500 supercomputer
Mea culpa! I didn't care to look through the pages with numbers greater than 5. And the system, having been ranked 282 of 500, appeared to be on 6th.
Mea culpa! I didn't care to look through the pages with numbers greater than 5. And the system, having been ranked 282 of 500, appeared to be on 6th.
::grins::, just pointing out that *someone* was crazy enough to do it!
For what it's worth I dont believe either X nor it's mac pro based successor, G, appear on the current top500, but they do exist :-p
In general though apple hardware really isnt well suited to that environment, where they lack the density and definitely the performance/density/price to compete (and that's even getting started on software)
::grins::, just pointing out that *someone* was crazy enough to do it!
For what it's worth I dont believe either X nor it's mac pro based successor, G, appear on the current top500, but they do exist :-p
In general though apple hardware really isnt well suited to that environment, where they lack the density and definitely the performance/density/price to compete (and that's even getting started on software)
It's written in black and white there: "home-built cluster" (what we else call diminutively "home-brew"). I meant industrially useful systems.
Thanks for info, MacTripper!
It's a bit unexpected then, that Apple fell in romance with ZFS after they had actually been done with PPC.
Like Apple is a jet ski that can turn on a dime.
Way to go Nvidia!
Dreamed, completed and scored in the top ten for that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac...percomputer%29
Then there was one that was done for the military, classified about it's speed. Larger that System X.
It's written in black and white there: "home-built cluster" (what we else call diminutively "home-brew"). I meant industrially useful systems.
Well, it is a research cluster, used in a production environment.
They mean home built as in not a directly and wholly supplied solution, and G is the "most advanced network of power and thermal sensors ever assembled in this type of machine" which is neat.
OTOH the only reason it was possible it seems was highly subsidized hardware from apple and, I suspect, "free" power - in most large research unis that I've ever heard this come up (including where I am, at Stony Brook) power is considered part of the general university operating budget, not charged to depts.
But yeah, you're still pretty much right. No one is providing this as a commercial solution because, outside the above environment, it's utterly impractical!
I really wish Apple *would* try for that market, with their engineers and their new-found focus on parallel optimization I've a feeling theyd come up with something impressive :-(
Like Apple is a jet ski that can turn on a dime.
Kinda. No, I still don't believe Apple would go in supercomputing further, than to some students' experiments. What looks more probable to me is they might have had some prospects of developing OS X Server into serious and recognized server platform.
Dreamed, completed and scored in the top ten for that time.
Already fixed.