[besson3c]

If this Slashdot story is right, it looks like we have much waiting time before we adopt a modern file system. I was hoping this would be a nice little boost for Snow Leopard...

[turtle777]

I agree, it's sad that Apple just can't get it done.

Wasn't it first promised for Leopard ?

-t

[besson3c]

No mention of ZFS at all at the WWDC, at least in the keynote, huh?

Must be a very long ways away... I wonder if the Oracle buyout had something to do with this?

[besson3c]

Actually, if you read the comments on Slashdot it sounds like there are still a lot of problems with ZFS in general, even on Solaris machines. Its future seems in doubt now, regardless of Apple's interest.

Maybe Apple should shift gears to adopting ext4 and LVM?

[TETENAL]

Btrfs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And since this is developed by Oracle, this is where the future resources are going to anyway. Not ZFS probably.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I agree, it's sad that Apple just can't get it done.

Wasn't it first promised for Leopard ?

-t

Not by Apple. People speculated about it, and a guy from Sun said it was going to happen, but I don't think Apple ever claimed full ZFS support would be in Leopard.

[besson3c]

Tetenal: thanks for that link!

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I think that 99% of people don't see what is wrong with HFS+.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I think that 99% of people don't see what is wrong with HFS+.

Well, the link above (btrfs) gives some nice ideas that I would love to see implemented.

E.g.
* Compression (zlib; enabled by the mount option -o compress)
* Efficient incremental backup (supported by file system, rather than extra software like TM)

-t

[besson3c]

analogue: honestly, I think the question should be "what is right about HFS+?" 99% of users can't attribute any problems they encounter to the low level parts of any OS, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't notice tangible improvements with something better, even if they couldn't identify what had changed.

We've also been over several times what sorts of benefits the user would potentially notice with a better file system.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

analogue: honestly, I think the question should be "what is right about HFS+?" 99% of users can't attribute any problems they encounter to the low level parts of any OS, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't notice tangible improvements with something better, even if they couldn't identify what had changed.

We've also been over several times what sorts of benefits the user would potentially notice with a better file system.

Are you kidding? I would love a new file system. My point is there is nothing HUGELY wrong with HFS+ that is holding major features back or causing problems.

Sure compression and fancy backups are nice but with big hard drives on the cheap and nobody bothering to backup anyway the general consumer is drooling over it or even knows what a file system is to begin with never-mind improvements.

I'm sure it will come soon enough. But we have been saying that about resolution independence and an new UI for years now too.

[besson3c]

It just depends on what you call a major feature. The improvements that ZFS could offer backup schemes would be a major feature for me. Better faster overall writes would be another. Not having to run fsck or DiskWarrior every once in a while would be nice too, as would being able to create hashishls out of multiple hard drives and stuff like that.

To me this stuff is at least as major as any other number of features that are heralded as major by Apple's marketing.

I guess I agree with you that there is nothing hugely wrong with HFS+, but there was nothing hugely wrong with Tiger either, or the last major version of iTunes, or whatever... Overall, I would think that it is safe to call it one of the weakest and most flimsy parts of the whole OS. It is ripe for improvement.

[besson3c]

Don't mind this, I'm just trying to figure out how "pools" became "hashishls" above and how to trip off the substitution so that I can confuse people and have a good excuse.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Introducing 10.6 Snow Leopard: Not having to run fsck or DiskWarrior and create hashishls out of multiple hard drives, and stuff like that.

Ya I can already picture the huge bulletins outside the Apple Stores with that as the catch line.

[besson3c]

As opposed to "OpenCL: some stuff might be faster for you if you have a certain video card"?

I get your point, but whether a feature is too esoteric to market is a different issue altogether, right?

[goMac]

It's not dead. You can download it today and use it with Leopard.

[besson3c]

I know, but what is its future?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Introducing 10.6 Snow Leopard: Not having to run fsck or DiskWarrior and create hashishls out of multiple hard drives, and stuff like that.

How about "Introducing 10.6 Snow Leopard: It Just Works"?

Because ZFS would go a long way toward making that more true.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know, but what is its future?

It's open source, so really, anything.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As opposed to "OpenCL: some stuff might be faster for you if you have a certain video card"?

I think the "2-4x faster" they use is a bit more catchy.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As opposed to "OpenCL: some stuff might be faster for you if you have a certain video card"?

Touché.

-t

[Salty]

My guess is the whole Oracle buying Sun bit had something to do with it too

[Eriamjh]

Doesn't anyone remember the Sun-guy saying that Leopard would have ZFS before a Mac event and then we heard nothing and then he denied saying it?

Edit: It's right there one the slashdot page!

Jobs killed it. Nobody upstages Steve.

If it isn't ready, Apple won't use it. Maybe Apple will develop AFS?