By the time this gets implemented (if it ever does) I don't think extra cpu cycles will be that hard to come by in your average desktop P.C.
I don't think CPU cycles are the concern. (For the record, I hope that the idea of "cpu cycles" is an out-of-date term real soon, but that's an entirely different topic). The concern is that hard disks are relatively slow, and they are also the most prone-to-failure component in a computer. In fact, they are probably one to two orders or magnitude more likely to fail than anything else in the computer. Perhaps more. The more writing that goes on, the shorter the lifetime. In commodity disks this is more of a problem than on over-engineered server disks.
I think ZFS has a lot of promise, but I'd rather have Reiser and a backup utility built into the OS.
The reason why he's saying no Disk Warrior isn't needed is because ZFS has 64-bit checkusm for data integrity. It even prevents "Silent Corruption" that can affect a RAID set without the controller knowing there is corruption happening.
If a hard drive fails you simply replace it and the filesystem updates the drive based off of the checksums.
I don't think ZFS makes it into Leopard either but you never know.
OS X is built to add another FS and I genuinely think Apple is interested in ZFS enough. They don't have a bunch of legacy hardware and software to protect.
That'd assuming that there's more than one drive. From my understanding, that capability will be lost with the drive, if it's the only one in the system. I think he meant using only one drive.
That'd assuming that there's more than one drive. From my understanding, that capability will be lost with the drive, if it's the only one in the system. I think he meant using only one drive.
Naturally. What do you think about the prospects that an OS someday will sense the drive is failing and write the OS contents to non-volative RAM of some sort? It could be like a quasi redundancy in a one drive system.
I really like the data integrity featues of ZFS. Considering that computer manufacturers are relieving the burden of some items like TCP/IP processing and utilizing the GPU for some heavy lifting from the CPU it may make sense to forgo on a $500 HBA. The money savings puts you into the next level processor which offsets the additional CPU hit.
Naturally. What do you think about the prospects that an OS someday will sense the drive is failing and write the OS contents to non-volative RAM of some sort? It could be like a quasi redundancy in a one drive system.
I really like the data integrity featues of ZFS. Considering that computer manufacturers are relieving the burden of some items like TCP/IP processing and utilizing the GPU for some heavy lifting from the CPU it may make sense to forgo on a $500 HBA. The money savings puts you into the next level processor which offsets the additional CPU hit.
I see no reason why it can't be done. with Flash becoming part of the drive itself, it could be an internal operation using the SMART protocalls. It could also be written to Flash that's within the machine itself. Most of the time, only the directory would be needed.
ZFS does seem to be well thought out. Even the speed issues sometimes brought up are not really a problem. This is something that I really do hope Apple takes to heart.
It's certainly something we could use.
Reiser. I don't know too much about that, and I'm wondering why some, such as Splinemodel, prefer it (Yes, splinemodel, I am addressing you too here, I haven't forgotten you. )
I use Strongspace at work for offsite backups. They recently moved their service to Solaris and the filesystem to ZFS. It's amazing. First, the speed of the system improved dramatically (writing to it, reading large directories over internet much faster, etc.). It also has built in file compression which works really well. I thought I would have to upgrade my account for more storage but the change knocked 35% off my total backup size.
Just bought a new server at work with RAID. Would love it if I didn't have to buy a seperate $300.00 cerc card.
I'm no file system expert but it seems like a no brainer for Apple.
I'm no file system expert but it seems like a no brainer for Apple.
I am not either, but you don't need to be in order to understand that changing the underlying file system is a non-trivial and complicated task that needs time. I would be surprised to see Apple coming out with ZFS in Leopard. If this is to happen sometime, I am inclined to believe that it is for the next big OS X update after Leopard, at the earliest.
Call me crazy, but if Sun tanks completely, ie: becomes junk bonds, I think Apple should snap them up and squeeze all their Unix and networking smarts out of them.
I am not either, but you don't need to be in order to understand that changing the underlying file system is a non-trivial and complicated task that needs time. I would be surprised to see Apple coming out with ZFS in Leopard. If this is to happen sometime, I am inclined to believe that it is for the next big OS X update after Leopard, at the earliest.
Actually in OS X the transition could be quite straightforward. The OS layer uses a virtual file system that connects to physical filesystems in a relatively clean manner. As long as the physical filesystem meets all the interface expectations of the virtual filesystem calls the OS makes the OS layer should not need any tweaking. The harder issues are guaranteeing stability and data integrity. Especially when the FS port needs to have it's calls to the OS ported as well, no virtual layer going that direction.
Call me crazy, but if Sun tanks completely, ie: becomes junk bonds, I think Apple should snap them up and squeeze all their Unix and networking smarts out of them.
That would be a tremendously ironic twist, given that about ten years ago Sun was thinking about buying Apple.
Actually in OS X the transition could be quite straightforward. The OS layer uses a virtual file system that connects to physical filesystems in a relatively clean manner. As long as the physical filesystem meets all the interface expectations of the virtual filesystem calls the OS makes the OS layer should not need any tweaking.
So you imply that technically it is possible to see ZFS even in Leopard?
It's absolutely possible to implement ZFS as a non-bootable file system for OS X. It doesn't require Apple to do it, either. Sun could do it, and virtually any experienced developer could.
The bootability part, on the other hand, makes things significantly more complicated.
I am not either, but you don't need to be in order to understand that changing the underlying file system is a non-trivial and complicated task that needs time. I would be surprised to see Apple coming out with ZFS in Leopard. If this is to happen sometime, I am inclined to believe that it is for the next big OS X update after Leopard, at the earliest.
Didn't necessarily mean for Leopard, just long term. I think it could be a big selling point to small businesses.
The only thing that I see as a potential problem is the transition from HFS+ to ZFS. I like ZFS, it offers a lot of potential possibilities to really enhance OS X. I just wonder how we would go about updating a Filesystem from HFS+ to ZFS.
BTW, I am by no means a File System expert, but I remember the migration from AFS to HFS (System 6 to System 7, I believe). You had to do a complete re-format to accomplish it. Would the same thing need to be done to accomplish this kind of transition?
Call me crazy, but if Sun tanks completely, ie: becomes junk bonds, I think Apple should snap them up and squeeze all their Unix and networking smarts out of them.
You don't need to buy them in order to hire away their engineers - sounds like a waste of money to me.
And you buy the stock, not the bonds, when you want to buy a company.
BTW, I am by no means a File System expert, but I remember the migration from AFS to HFS (System 6 to System 7, I believe).
Er. AFS is a network file system.
I assume you mean MFS to HFS. There was also HFS to HFS+ in 8.1, which, again, required a reformat if you wanted to use the new features. There was a commercial conversion tool offered by a third party, however.
I'm not quite sure why everyone is getting so excited about ZFS. Name a feature it has that you'd be using that has true practical benefits for everyday Mac use.
Comments
Originally posted by the cool gut
By the time this gets implemented (if it ever does) I don't think extra cpu cycles will be that hard to come by in your average desktop P.C.
I don't think CPU cycles are the concern. (For the record, I hope that the idea of "cpu cycles" is an out-of-date term real soon, but that's an entirely different topic). The concern is that hard disks are relatively slow, and they are also the most prone-to-failure component in a computer. In fact, they are probably one to two orders or magnitude more likely to fail than anything else in the computer. Perhaps more. The more writing that goes on, the shorter the lifetime. In commodity disks this is more of a problem than on over-engineered server disks.
I think ZFS has a lot of promise, but I'd rather have Reiser and a backup utility built into the OS.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I think ZFS has a lot of promise, but I'd rather have Reiser and a backup utility built into the OS.
Me too. They could offer ZFS as an optional FS, but only after it has been thoroughly tested and in a point upgrade.
Originally posted by hmurchison
The reason why he's saying no Disk Warrior isn't needed is because ZFS has 64-bit checkusm for data integrity. It even prevents "Silent Corruption" that can affect a RAID set without the controller knowing there is corruption happening.
If a hard drive fails you simply replace it and the filesystem updates the drive based off of the checksums.
I don't think ZFS makes it into Leopard either but you never know.
OS X is built to add another FS and I genuinely think Apple is interested in ZFS enough. They don't have a bunch of legacy hardware and software to protect.
That'd assuming that there's more than one drive. From my understanding, that capability will be lost with the drive, if it's the only one in the system. I think he meant using only one drive.
Originally posted by melgross
That'd assuming that there's more than one drive. From my understanding, that capability will be lost with the drive, if it's the only one in the system. I think he meant using only one drive.
Naturally. What do you think about the prospects that an OS someday will sense the drive is failing and write the OS contents to non-volative RAM of some sort? It could be like a quasi redundancy in a one drive system.
I really like the data integrity featues of ZFS. Considering that computer manufacturers are relieving the burden of some items like TCP/IP processing and utilizing the GPU for some heavy lifting from the CPU it may make sense to forgo on a $500 HBA. The money savings puts you into the next level processor which offsets the additional CPU hit.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Naturally. What do you think about the prospects that an OS someday will sense the drive is failing and write the OS contents to non-volative RAM of some sort? It could be like a quasi redundancy in a one drive system.
I really like the data integrity featues of ZFS. Considering that computer manufacturers are relieving the burden of some items like TCP/IP processing and utilizing the GPU for some heavy lifting from the CPU it may make sense to forgo on a $500 HBA. The money savings puts you into the next level processor which offsets the additional CPU hit.
I see no reason why it can't be done. with Flash becoming part of the drive itself, it could be an internal operation using the SMART protocalls. It could also be written to Flash that's within the machine itself. Most of the time, only the directory would be needed.
ZFS does seem to be well thought out. Even the speed issues sometimes brought up are not really a problem. This is something that I really do hope Apple takes to heart.
It's certainly something we could use.
Reiser. I don't know too much about that, and I'm wondering why some, such as Splinemodel, prefer it (Yes, splinemodel, I am addressing you too here, I haven't forgotten you.
Can't wait to see some benchmarks in the real world on this thing.
I used to be all about reiserfs, too, but now I feel inclined to belive that ZFS is the holy grail.
The mere fact that it schedules reads over writes makes for a much, much more usable filesystem under heavy loads.
Just bought a new server at work with RAID. Would love it if I didn't have to buy a seperate $300.00 cerc card.
I'm no file system expert but it seems like a no brainer for Apple.
Originally posted by farmer2
I'm no file system expert but it seems like a no brainer for Apple.
I am not either, but you don't need to be in order to understand that changing the underlying file system is a non-trivial and complicated task that needs time. I would be surprised to see Apple coming out with ZFS in Leopard. If this is to happen sometime, I am inclined to believe that it is for the next big OS X update after Leopard, at the earliest.
Originally posted by PB
I am not either, but you don't need to be in order to understand that changing the underlying file system is a non-trivial and complicated task that needs time. I would be surprised to see Apple coming out with ZFS in Leopard. If this is to happen sometime, I am inclined to believe that it is for the next big OS X update after Leopard, at the earliest.
Actually in OS X the transition could be quite straightforward. The OS layer uses a virtual file system that connects to physical filesystems in a relatively clean manner. As long as the physical filesystem meets all the interface expectations of the virtual filesystem calls the OS makes the OS layer should not need any tweaking. The harder issues are guaranteeing stability and data integrity. Especially when the FS port needs to have it's calls to the OS ported as well, no virtual layer going that direction.
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Call me crazy, but if Sun tanks completely, ie: becomes junk bonds, I think Apple should snap them up and squeeze all their Unix and networking smarts out of them.
That would be a tremendously ironic twist, given that about ten years ago Sun was thinking about buying Apple.
Originally posted by Hiro
Actually in OS X the transition could be quite straightforward. The OS layer uses a virtual file system that connects to physical filesystems in a relatively clean manner. As long as the physical filesystem meets all the interface expectations of the virtual filesystem calls the OS makes the OS layer should not need any tweaking.
So you imply that technically it is possible to see ZFS even in Leopard?
The bootability part, on the other hand, makes things significantly more complicated.
Originally posted by Chucker
The bootability part, on the other hand, makes things significantly more complicated.
And it is exactly this one we talk about here, right?
Originally posted by PB
I am not either, but you don't need to be in order to understand that changing the underlying file system is a non-trivial and complicated task that needs time. I would be surprised to see Apple coming out with ZFS in Leopard. If this is to happen sometime, I am inclined to believe that it is for the next big OS X update after Leopard, at the earliest.
Didn't necessarily mean for Leopard, just long term. I think it could be a big selling point to small businesses.
BTW, I am by no means a File System expert, but I remember the migration from AFS to HFS (System 6 to System 7, I believe). You had to do a complete re-format to accomplish it. Would the same thing need to be done to accomplish this kind of transition?
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Call me crazy, but if Sun tanks completely, ie: becomes junk bonds, I think Apple should snap them up and squeeze all their Unix and networking smarts out of them.
You don't need to buy them in order to hire away their engineers - sounds like a waste of money to me.
And you buy the stock, not the bonds, when you want to buy a company.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
BTW, I am by no means a File System expert, but I remember the migration from AFS to HFS (System 6 to System 7, I believe).
Er. AFS is a network file system.
I assume you mean MFS to HFS. There was also HFS to HFS+ in 8.1, which, again, required a reformat if you wanted to use the new features. There was a commercial conversion tool offered by a third party, however.
I'm not quite sure why everyone is getting so excited about ZFS. Name a feature it has that you'd be using that has true practical benefits for everyday Mac use.