MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

"....MacRevu writes, "This file system, called ZFS, was created by Sun Microsystems..."

So, ok if Sun ® created it -- why wouldn't they license it ? -- (instead of making it "open source")

Seems like a huge blunder for them-- doesn't it ?

Apr 06, 09 - 11:48 am Comment from: ajdowntown

I have been wondering why no ZFS in desktop systems either. You would think this would be a logical progression for Apple, Even if Apple id uninterested in the self-healing beauty of it, you think they would want it for the dynamic storage option. With Apple trying to be the king of your home digital domain, users have a greater need for more cheap storage. Heck, I have 6TB of space for media, and that is quickly becoming too little. If I knew I could just hot-swap out drives as cheaper storage becomes available, that would be a God-send. I would even consider ponying up for a mac pro so I had access to 4 drive bays (although I would love more if Apple would but them in!).

Apple needs a home server to serve up all the digital goods it is hawking, and it seems like ZFS would be a good fit! Give it to me Apple!

Perhaps they aren't releasing it for the mainstream users yet because it's not yet ready for mainstream? Perhaps they are just being careful so as to not cause thousands of early adopters to all fail all at once in case something goes wrong?

Oh - and for rim shot -
See - it's ok that they're giving it away for free instead of selling it - they'll make up the difference in volume...

I love articles like this. It's written by someone who has but a cursory knowledge of the subject, and pretends to be an expert. Don't get me wrong: ZFS sounds very promising. But I have to believe that Apple has engineers and specialists who have been examining this for at least a couple of years, and see both pros and cons. This article describes ZFS as though it would be the Second Coming, and that all our problems would be solved IF ONLY Apple would adopt this completely.

The truth is usually more complex than that.

Someday, we will get a better explanation about the problems and challenges of adopting this. But until then, we deal with breathless, gushy and whiny articles like this. I look forward to seeing the other side of the coin.

@ DreamTheEndless --

"...Oh - and for rim shot -
See - it's ok that they're giving it away for free instead of selling it - they'll make up the difference in volume..."

Damn ! -- I just did a "coffee" spit-take --
all over my keyboard !!

Apr 06, 09 - 12:00 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

#1. "Not Invented Here". Could that be why Apple has more in-house HFS+ advocates than ZFS advocates?
#2. how many Macs come with even the option of having multiple internal hard drives? That would be a) the MacPro and ... the MacServes.
#3. support ... it was designed at Sun but maintained ... where? Why, at Apple, should they choose to put it out there.
#4. who really needs it? A small subset of those who buy the cheese-grater Macs and many of the MacServes.

Apr 06, 09 - 12:04 pm Comment from: jocknerd

ZFS is the second coming. To use it as server storage its awesome. For Apple to use it as their base filesystem is another story. Apple has put a lot of time and development into HFS+. With all the hooks they have into the file system with metadata and such, its a pretty tall task to get that working with ZFS. Remember, HFS+ still sucks as a Unix file system. Try to run it as one, and it has lots of problems.

I'm just waiting for ZFS to become license compatible with Linux. Then I could set up my home storage system running Debian with external drive cases containing TB's of storage. Not really interested in OpenSolaris since its incompatible with so much hardware.

Apr 06, 09 - 12:05 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

DreamTheEndless<b> wrote: "Oh - and for rim shot -
See - it's ok that they're giving it away for free instead of selling it - they'll make up the difference in volume..."
Don't <b>TALK like that! That was pretty much the way Amiga types were talking about their gaming CD-drive/console toward the end. The end would have come even sooner if they had seen the sales they'd hoped for.
Even iTunes has it's payback model. Safari, not-so-much.

Apr 06, 09 - 12:07 pm Comment from: Erk

So you can have something to upgrade to later, that's how Apple works, with as good as their OS is, it's getting more difficult to add the "next best thing" this would be... Start with servers, then move the same functionality to the desktop.

It's holding off for the next version.

Steve Jobs did say that Mac OS X would last tens years. If 2001 was the starting point, then maybe in 2011 we will see an all new OS and ZFS with be used.

ZFS is the SCSI of file systems: powerful, but hard to configure. I think Apple is wisely being incremental in their approach to developing a consumer-friendly way of handling it. In the meantime, they can roll it out to System Admins on OS X Server deployments, who can really use everyting ZFS has to offer.

"I just hope that Apple understands how important ZFS really could be."

Of course Apple doesn't have nearly as good an understanding of computer technology than the writer does...

Uh?!

Um, people *do* understand that changing an entire filesystem is a very tricky thing, right? One bug in your filesystem handling code, and your data is severely nuked.

ZFS is definitely the future standard for filesystems, since it virtually guarantees that its limits will never be reached, unlike today's filesystems. But this isn't something to rush into.

Apple appear to be doing the smart thing by rolling it out in stages. Of course, in today's "NOW NOW NOW!" culture, people don't really understand this. Thankfully, the folks at Apple seem to be rather smarter than your typical peanut-gallery commenter, who has minimal knowledge of the technical challenges involved.

MW: plans

xsan

Apr 06, 09 - 12:41 pm Comment from: Mr. Reeee

With the majority of Macs sold today being portables, you've really got to wonder how ZFS works with multiple drives... ESPECIALLY connecting and DISconnecting multiple external drives. Let's pray it's not like SCSI!

I use a MacBook Pro with a 200GB 7200 rpm internal drive. I keep my iTunes library and copies of project archive files on a 2 1/2" portable FireWire 800 drive. The majority of my Photos and project archives are on another external FireWire 800 drive, soon to be a 2TB RAID. I keep another external FireWire 800 drive to do weekly cloning of the MBP drive. Lastly, I have an external FireWire 800 RAID that I use for Time Machine. There's an external MO drive, too.

How will ZFS deal with my constant disconnecting and connecting of my Mac from/with/to this batch of drives? One has to wonder and one can BET that Apple needs to grapple with the question, make it workable, easy to set-up and configure AND it's gotta be pure-Mac- rock-solid reliable!

That's a tall set of tasks and NONE of us want something like that rushed to the Mac OS X desktop unless it ready! Folding it into Mac OS X Server is a good start and will give Apple a small user base for tweaking and optimizing it for a full-blown release.

Will it ship with Snow Leopard, be a point release update or make it's way to the desktop in 10.7?

Apr 06, 09 - 12:45 pm Comment from: MrScrith

I don't remember where I saw the info, but last I heard booting a ZFS filesystem is very new (last year) and still has quite a few bugs. Also, ZFS, while great for server systems with multiple hard-drives and RAIDs an such would really benefit, consumer hardware like laptops and iMac's and Mac Mini's would not benefit and would actually be loosing hard-drive space to ZFS's features (all of the 'self healing' features of ZFS are at the expense of space).

So while ZFS is a great filesystem, it's somewhat useless to general consumers. My understanding is that OS X 10.6 server will be able to read/write/create/etc ZFS partitions for storage while still staying on HFS+ for the OS, making use of ZFS where it's actually useful.

The last thing Apple needs is weird bugs cropping up in a file system they didn't create. I'd like to hear from some Solaris admins who've used ZFS daily and what their experiences are with it.

Does the average user need ZFS? Probably not, and I see little advantage of including it until it's brain-dead simple and reliable to the average user. HFS+ has its limitations but it has been around since the beginning of the Mac. ZFS has less than 5 years and even less actually ported to Mac OS X.

At least by letting Snow Leopard Server admins have first go at this, you also artificially create demand for Apple hardware by hardcore Unix/Apple geeks. If something goes wrong, at least a system administrator can talk to higher-up level support and solve some problems before consumers use it.

Apr 06, 09 - 12:50 pm Comment from: Gregg Thurman

Not everybody drives a 40 ton 18 wheeler to the supermarket. ZFS isn't designed for the average user (tech ability/needs), so like the example of the 18 wheeler, Apple isn't going to make it available to everyone, just those that have a need.

ZFS stands for Zune file system. Why do you think IBM is trying to buy SUN? It is to prevent the Zune from taking over corporate IT.

I agree with Gabriel - folks, it is the most basic, most important part of your operating system. You don't just swap it out without years of testing. Apple will release it when it is good and ready and won't eat all your data. This isn't an applications - this is the most important part of your system.

Apr 06, 09 - 01:10 pm Comment from: Chas

You can't boot from a ZFS drive for a start. For other limitations, look up "ZFS" on Wikipedia.

=:~)

Apr 06, 09 - 01:13 pm Comment from: Tommy Boy

*sigh*

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/09/mac_os_x_snow_leopard_server_to_pioneer_zfs_ahead_of_desktop.html

Apr 06, 09 - 01:21 pm Comment from: thethirdshoe

ZFS will be let loose on the enterprise first. You will have people that know what they are doing, working with it.
Then Apple will place a "simple" user interface on ZFS and release that for your grandma some time in the future. It has to "Just Work".

Let us assume that ZFS is 100% stable, there are no bugs and it's ready to go. Great, it does all these amazing things, you can plug drives in and out and configure it to allow incredibly flexible functionality, how exactly is the man on the street going to have the faintest clue about how best to use that?

It's hard enough deciding how to allocate your storage in terms of time machine I mean the more base space you have to start with, the more space you need to back up to and then you need more on top of that to allow for previous versions of stuff. It's a nightmare. Apple, or indeed anybody needs to add this stuff gradually in a way that makes sense, that integrates with existing features, that is easy to use.

You don't just dump something so fundamental and game changing and little understood in people's and let them get on with it, it'd be chaos. I'm no computer expert, but I have a better understanding and confidence with computers than most people and I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to best take advantage of it.

Having the file system is one thing, utilising it in an OS is another.

Apr 06, 09 - 01:32 pm Comment from: thethirdshoe

The link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS

It takes less time to do it right then it takes to explain to you what you did wrong.

Apr 06, 09 - 02:06 pm Comment from: Cubert

@RC,

"Steve Jobs did say that Mac OS X would last tens years. If 2001 was the starting point, then maybe in 2011 we will see an all new OS and ZFS with be used."

He actually said 20 years. It's at the end of the Tiger release keynote.

Apr 06, 09 - 02:30 pm Comment from: Anonymous©

Yeah, read what Dilger, aka Prince McLean, had to say about ZFS in the AppleInsider link, above.

Also, read what John Gruber at Daring Fireball had to say about how Apple builds up complexity from the simple, by iterating on a strong foundation:
http://daringfireball.net/2009/04/complex

Apr 06, 09 - 02:33 pm Comment from: Steve Hix

"You can't boot from a ZFS drive for a start."

While that may be true on Macs currently, it hasn't been true for more than a year on Solaris.

It's been part of Open Solaris since Solaris 10 10/08.

http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/zfsboot-1?a=view

like anything worthwhile, all the great features of zfs come at a price. the system is a notorious resource hog. this is ok in a server environment where powerful processors and lots of RAM are routine, but apple is not going to let Snow Leopard's performance suffer on consumer hardware, especially as they tout all the under-the-hood changes.

My bet is apple takes another year or so (maybe even 10.7) to wrap it into a consumer-centric system. Apple will not deploy it widely until they can tout big user features, and besides, what percentage of mac users even know they're using HFS+?

Linux doesn't use ZFS yet. It's not a technical issue it's a licensing issue with their "open source" agreement (it's not the same a GPL license Linux uses).

I'm guessing Apple want to be really careful before they accept Suns licensing agreement for something as fundamental as the FS.

I have been wondering why no ZFS in desktop systems either. You would think this would be a logical progression for Apple, Even if Apple id uninterested in the self-healing beauty of it, you think they would want it for the dynamic storage option.

You, *HAVE* followed detailed technical discussion on ZFS and have understood that it has still has some *very* week points to being used for desktop systems. You, *HAVE*, right?

For example:

The fatzap storage structure (of ZFS) requires an additional 128KB of disk space for any attribute that's not part of the basic ZFS model, including most of those that Mac OS X software use. (...) A standard Mac OS X installation can easily include 600,000 separate files. If just 20% of them have attributes that require a fatzap object, ZFS would require 120,000 fatzap objects at 128KB each, or more than 15GB of additional disk space above what an HFS Plus disk would require for the same data storage.

Or:

Hard disks … are building blocks that you can just drop in to add storage to your system. Partitioning, formatting, migrating data from old small drive to new big drive — these all go away.

True. But with current ZFS, you can never remove these building blocks. If you add an external hard drive to your MacBook's ZFS pool, you must keep the external hard drive attached to the pool from then onward or else the filesystem is more or less destroyed. The only way around that is—wait for it—using RAID-Z so that the filesystems have at least one copy of the data.

Or:

Everyone loves the ZFS snapshots, but no one seems willing to point out that they eat disk space like crazy. Sun is fond of saying that snapshots take up no disk space, but that's only true when they're created, just like an empty file.

Check: http://www.macjournals.com/news/2007/10/07.html#a80

Apr 06, 09 - 08:03 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

I'm not going to profess to be informed in these issues, but if ZFS is a 128 bit system how can it work on an Intel CPU if they are 64 bit? Can anyone enlighten me?

Apple currently has the least stable file system on modern computers. If they can't buy one they should be working on one. Their server market share isn't even worth mentioning, I'm not sure why they bother.

Apr 08, 09 - 12:00 am Comment from: Brulek

Or maybe will take ZFS, tinker with the edges of it, call it something else and then everybody will marvel at how magnificent apple are? It wouldn't be the first time...(BSD comes to mind). Of course then apple with take an open source project and turn it into a closed source one so they can bilk people even more, rather than giving something back. They're like google in that regard: a sink.