>From Macintouch (http://macintouch.com/#other.2007.06.07):--- On stage Wednesday in Washington D.C., Sun Microsystems Inc. CEO Jonathan Schwartz revealed that his company''s open-source ZFS file system will replace Apple''s long-used HFS+ in Mac OS X 10.5, a.k.a. "Leopard," when the new operating system ships this fall. "This week, you''ll see that Apple is announcing at their Worldwide Developers Conference that ZFS has become the file system in Mac OS X," said Schwartz. ZFS (Zettabyte File System), designed by Sun for its Solaris OS but licensed as open-source, is a 128-bit file storage system that features, among other things, "pooled storage," which means that users simply plug in additional drives to add space, without worrying about such traditional storage parameters as volumes or partitions. "[ZFS] eliminates volume management, it has extremely high performance.... It permits the failure of disk drives," crowed Schwartz during a presentation focused on Sun''s new blade servers. --- This message posted from opensolaris.org
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
2007-Jun-07 18:58 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Rick Mann wrote:>> From Macintouch (http://macintouch.com/#other.2007.06.07): > > --- > On stage Wednesday in Washington D.C., Sun Microsystems Inc. CEO > Jonathan Schwartz revealed that his company''s open-source ZFS file > system will replace Apple''s long-used HFS+ in Mac OS X 10.5, a.k.a. > "Leopard," when the new operating system ships this fall. "This > week, you''ll see that Apple is announcing at their Worldwide > Developers Conference that ZFS has become the file system in Mac OS > X," said Schwartz. > ZFS (Zettabyte File System), designed by Sun for its Solaris OS > but licensed as open-source, is a 128-bit file storage system that > features, among other things, "pooled storage," which means that > users simply plug in additional drives to add space, without > worrying about such traditional storage parameters as volumes or > partitions. > "[ZFS] eliminates volume management, it has extremely high > performance.... It permits the failure of disk drives," crowed > Schwartz during a presentation focused on Sun''s new blade servers. > --- >We''ll see next week what Steve announces at the WWDC keynote (which is not under NDA like the rest of the conference). I''ll be there and try to remember to post what is said (though it will probably be in a billion other places as well) Chad
Thanks, Chad. There''s some debate in the Mac community about what the phrase "the file system in Mac OS X" means. Does that mean that machines that ship with Leopard will run on ZFS discs by default? Will ZFS be the default file system when initializing a new drive? IMHO, that seems unlikely, given that zfs boot is still an unreleased feature. I''d be happy to be proven wrong, though. If there''s anyone in the know, please feel free to speak up. :-) Thanks, Lee On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:> > On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Rick Mann wrote: > >>> From Macintouch (http://macintouch.com/#other.2007.06.07): >> >> --- >> On stage Wednesday in Washington D.C., Sun Microsystems Inc. CEO >> Jonathan Schwartz revealed that his company''s open-source ZFS file >> system will replace Apple''s long-used HFS+ in Mac OS X 10.5, >> a.k.a. "Leopard," when the new operating system ships this fall. >> "This week, you''ll see that Apple is announcing at their Worldwide >> Developers Conference that ZFS has become the file system in Mac >> OS X," said Schwartz. >> ZFS (Zettabyte File System), designed by Sun for its Solaris OS >> but licensed as open-source, is a 128-bit file storage system that >> features, among other things, "pooled storage," which means that >> users simply plug in additional drives to add space, without >> worrying about such traditional storage parameters as volumes or >> partitions. >> "[ZFS] eliminates volume management, it has extremely high >> performance.... It permits the failure of disk drives," crowed >> Schwartz during a presentation focused on Sun''s new blade servers. >> --- >> > > We''ll see next week what Steve announces at the WWDC keynote (which > is not under NDA like the rest of the conference). I''ll be there > and try to remember to post what is said (though it will probably > be in a billion other places as well) > > Chad
On 7-Jun-07, at 4:53 PM, Lee Fyock wrote:> Thanks, Chad. > > There''s some debate in the Mac community about what the phrase "the > file system in Mac OS X" means. Does that mean that machines that > ship with Leopard will run on ZFS discs by default? Will ZFS be the > default file system when initializing a new drive? > > IMHO, that seems unlikely, given that zfs boot is still an > unreleased feature. I''d be happy to be proven wrong, though.OS X is radically different from Solaris, it would not surprise me at all if Apple ships this functionality for their integrated hardware. :) In general, IMHO this will be good for ZFS: Apple won''t ship until it''s shaken down and idiot proof. I expect this will result in substantial quality feedback and patches from Apple, which we probably have not seen yet due to their traditional pre-release secrecy? --Toby> > If there''s anyone in the know, please feel free to speak up. :-) > > Thanks, > Lee > > On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: > >> >> On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Rick Mann wrote: >> >>>> From Macintouch (http://macintouch.com/#other.2007.06.07): >>> >>> --- >>> On stage Wednesday in Washington D.C., Sun Microsystems Inc. CEO >>> Jonathan Schwartz revealed that his company''s open-source ZFS >>> file system will replace Apple''s long-used HFS+ in Mac OS X 10.5, >>> a.k.a. "Leopard," when the new operating system ships this fall. >>> "This week, you''ll see that Apple is announcing at their >>> Worldwide Developers Conference that ZFS has become the file >>> system in Mac OS X," said Schwartz. >>> ZFS (Zettabyte File System), designed by Sun for its Solaris OS >>> but licensed as open-source, is a 128-bit file storage system >>> that features, among other things, "pooled storage," which means >>> that users simply plug in additional drives to add space, without >>> worrying about such traditional storage parameters as volumes or >>> partitions. >>> "[ZFS] eliminates volume management, it has extremely high >>> performance.... It permits the failure of disk drives," crowed >>> Schwartz during a presentation focused on Sun''s new blade servers. >>> --- >>> >> >> We''ll see next week what Steve announces at the WWDC keynote >> (which is not under NDA like the rest of the conference). I''ll be >> there and try to remember to post what is said (though it will >> probably be in a billion other places as well) >> >> Chad > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On June 7, 2007 6:21:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> In general, IMHO this will be good for ZFS: Apple won''t ship until it''s > shaken down and idiot proof.Oh, I dunno. Apple ships a lot of buggy stuff.> I expect this will result in substantial > quality feedback and patches from Apple, which we probably have not seen > yet due to their traditional pre-release secrecy?Or due to the the lack of any serious issues thanks to the awesome Sun zfs team. :-) -frank
On 7-Jun-07, at 6:28 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:> On June 7, 2007 6:21:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> > wrote: >> In general, IMHO this will be good for ZFS: Apple won''t ship until >> it''s >> shaken down and idiot proof. > > Oh, I dunno. Apple ships a lot of buggy stuff.Not at this level. Remember they were the first company to make UNIX truly ready for consumer desktops, & I''ve been running it since 10.0 (and in production since 10.2).> >> I expect this will result in substantial >> quality feedback and patches from Apple, which we probably have >> not seen >> yet due to their traditional pre-release secrecy? > > Or due to the the lack of any serious issues thanks to the awesome > Sun zfs > team. :-)Indeed, both are top of the game. This is great news for us Mac users. --Toby> > -frank > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On June 7, 2007 6:37:29 PM -0300 Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> > On 7-Jun-07, at 6:28 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > >> On June 7, 2007 6:21:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> >> wrote: >>> In general, IMHO this will be good for ZFS: Apple won''t ship until >>> it''s >>> shaken down and idiot proof. >> >> Oh, I dunno. Apple ships a lot of buggy stuff. > > Not at this level. Remember they were the first company to make UNIX > truly ready for consumer desktops,I''ll just add, but not for Mac OS X. It was way back in Finder 7 days, when they used to ship A/UX. (That was where I cut my unix teeth.) -frank
On 7-Jun-07, at 8:13 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:> On June 7, 2007 6:37:29 PM -0300 Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> > wrote: >> >> On 7-Jun-07, at 6:28 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: >> >>> On June 7, 2007 6:21:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> >>> wrote: >>>> In general, IMHO this will be good for ZFS: Apple won''t ship until >>>> it''s >>>> shaken down and idiot proof. >>> >>> Oh, I dunno. Apple ships a lot of buggy stuff. >> >> Not at this level. Remember they were the first company to make UNIX >> truly ready for consumer desktops, > > I''ll just add, but not for Mac OS X. It was way back in Finder 7 > days, > when they used to ship A/UX. (That was where I cut my unix teeth.)I was actually thinking more of NEXTSTEP, certainly a generation beyond A/UX; and OS X, a generation further again. When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) --T> > -frank
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:38:10PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:> When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-)I''m sure Jonathan will be announcing that soon. ;-) Adam -- Adam Leventhal, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/ahl
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:38:10PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:> When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-)I''m hoping for L4, myself. http://ertos.nicta.com.au/software/darbat/ This message posted from opensolaris.org
On 6/8/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> > When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) >I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris. File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their improvements may never get back into the community. To _me_ Apple like company looks more dangerous than Microsoft :-( / bvk-chaitanya
This missed the group! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: BVK <bvk.groups at gmail.com> Date: Jun 8, 2007 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS To: Rick Mann <rmann at latencyzero.com> On 6/8/07, Rick Mann <rmann at latencyzero.com> wrote:> > I''m hoping for L4, myself. >Though L4 is good and fast, it has its problems. It is not secure (remember, with security through IPC redirection option, L4 is fast argument is gone) and its kernel-memory-management is not well defined. I think L4 still needs to evolve. BTW, i believe microkernels is the _right_ way and L4 is a first step in that direction. / bvk-chaitanya
On 08/06/07, BVK <bvk.groups at gmail.com> wrote:> On 6/8/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: > > > > When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) > > > > I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their > Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris.I think that''s extremely unlikely. Only the OSX userland is BSD like, and I''m not sure what replacing that would gain them. Why would they want a Solaris kernel?> File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like > Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their > improvements may never get back into the community.Apple have given plenty back to the BSD projects (although nothing required them to). -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/
On 8-Jun-07, at 3:13 AM, BVK wrote:> On 6/8/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: >> >> When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) >> > > I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their > Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris.Many think this would be a good move. :)> > File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like > Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their > improvements may never get back into the community. > > To _me_ Apple like company looks more dangerous than Microsoft :-(Perhaps when they''re at 95% market share. --Toby> > > / bvk-chaitanya > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Toby Thain wrote:> > On 8-Jun-07, at 3:13 AM, BVK wrote: > >> On 6/8/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote: >>> >>> When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) >>> >> >> I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their >> Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris. > > Many think this would be a good move. :) > >> >> File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like >> Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their >> improvements may never get back into the community. >> >> To _me_ Apple like company looks more dangerous than Microsoft :-( > > Perhaps when they''re at 95% market share. >Please - this thread is only diverging with each post and is already _way_ off topic. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, BVK wrote:> File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like > Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their > improvements may never get back into the community.But that can''t happen (to files that Apple modifies at least): the CDDL dictates that any changes you make to CDDLed files must be made available under the CDDL. If Apple create a NEW source file, then yes, it is possible that they wouldn''t release the source for that file; the CDDL permits this. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
2007-Jun-08 19:04 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS
On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Rich Teer wrote:> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, BVK wrote: > >> File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like >> Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their >> improvements may never get back into the community. > > But that can''t happen (to files that Apple modifies at least): the > CDDL dictates that any changes you make to CDDLed files must be > made available under the CDDL. If Apple create a NEW source file, > then yes, it is possible that they wouldn''t release the source for > that file; the CDDL permits this.No worries anyway. Apple has put most all of their stuff back that they work on that is open source. That does not mean stuff that they invent that interacts with open source. Safari is a good example of a new project that relied on open source and that apple put back. Now Nokia uses the same stuff in some of their phones. My N80 for example Chad
On 6/8/07, Rich Teer <rich.teer at rite-group.com> wrote:> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, BVK wrote: > > > File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like > > Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their > > improvements may never get back into the community. > > But that can''t happen (to files that Apple modifies at least): the > CDDL dictates that any changes you make to CDDLed files must be > made available under the CDDL. If Apple create a NEW source file, > then yes, it is possible that they wouldn''t release the source for > that file; the CDDL permits this. >What if the system doesn''t function with-out that NEW source file? Say for example, I change a CDDL source file and also add a NEW source file. With my changes, CDDL file now depends on NEW file for its proper functionality. But i dont give my NEW source file back to community. Does CDDL restrict scenarios like this? just curious, / bvk-chaitanya
On 6/8/07, Dick Davies <rasputnik at gmail.com> wrote:> On 08/06/07, BVK <bvk.groups at gmail.com> wrote: > > > File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like > > Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their > > improvements may never get back into the community. > > Apple have given plenty back to the BSD projects (although nothing required > them to).Sorry, i was unaware of any Apple''s contributions back to BSD community. If it is the case then, its good and i don''t have any problems with Apple :) / bvk-chaitanya
Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> > I''ll just add, but not for Mac OS X. It was way back in Finder 7 > > days, > > when they used to ship A/UX. (That was where I cut my unix teeth.) > > I was actually thinking more of NEXTSTEP, certainly a generation > beyond A/UX; and OS X, a generation further again. > > When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-)Definitely a good idea ;-) But I doubt that Apple will go this way. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Hello -> I think L4 still needs to evolve. BTW, i believe microkernels is the > _right_ way and L4 is a first step in that direction.Perhaps you could elaborate on this? I thought the microkernel debate ended in the 1990s, in terms of being a compelling technology direction for kernel development targetting general purpose computing. Sure, there may be a niche market for microkernels (which depends, in part, on your definition of what a microkernel is), but in terms of broad applicability, I thought the jury was in. CMU''s Mach was the last run at this that had any momentum. Thank you. /jim
I just installed the Leopard beta that was distributed at WWDC. Sadly, the installer provided no ZFS option (the only options were HFS Extended Journaled and a case-sensitive version of the same). However, typing this in the terminal: $ sudo zpool status Returned this: ZFS Readonly implemntation is loaded! To download the full ZFS read/write kext with all functionality enabled, please go to http://developer.apple.com no pools available This message posted from opensolaris.org
Wow, alright... I''m wondering if there are still some "top secret" items up Apple''s sleeve. Someone just told me yesterday that Microsoft had some tricks coming and that Apple not having a more refulgent keynote was likely due to this. Ie, they want Microsoft to tip their hand first prior to announcing some other goodies. We''ll see. It does seem that things are heating up between the two companies, even though its somewhat lighthearted at the moment. On 6/12/07, Rick Mann <rmann at latencyzero.com> wrote:> I just installed the Leopard beta that was distributed at WWDC. Sadly, the installer provided no ZFS option (the only options were HFS Extended Journaled and a case-sensitive version of the same). > > However, typing this in the terminal: > > $ sudo zpool status > > Returned this: > > ZFS Readonly implemntation is loaded! > To download the full ZFS read/write kext with all functionality enabled, please go to http://developer.apple.com > no pools available > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
Well, that sounds promising. But I just went to http://developer.apple.com , searched for ZFS, and got 0 results found. jetforme, have you tried to locate the ZFS kext and install it? Any success? This message posted from opensolaris.org
Since the copy I have I did not get through normal channels, I don''t have WWDC access to the dev site, so I don''t know if it''s there or not. However, my friend looked, and couldn''t find it, either. This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Rick Mann wrote:> ZFS Readonly implemntation is loaded!Is that a copy-n-paste error, or is that typo in the actual output? Regards, markm
>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Rick Mann wrote:>> ZFS Readonly implemntation is loaded!>Is that a copy-n-paste error, or is that typo in the actual output?It''s a typo in the actual output. This message posted from opensolaris.org
>From (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=199903525)--- [...] Seeking to clarify a statement made on Monday by Brian Croll, senior director of Mac OS X Product Marketing, to two InformationWeek reporters that Apple''s new "Leopard" operating system would not include the ZFS file system, an Apple spokesperson indicated that ZFS would be available as a limited option, but not as the default file system. ZFS "is only available a read-only option from the command line," according to an Apple spokesperson. In a follow-up interview today, Croll explained, "ZFS is not the default file system for Leopard. We are exploring it as a file system option for high-end storage systems with really large storage. As a result, we have included ZFS -- a read-only copy of ZFS -- in Leopard." [...] --- This message posted from opensolaris.org
On 13-Jun-07, at 1:14 PM, Rick Mann wrote:>> From (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;? >> articleID=199903525) > > ... Croll explained, "ZFS is not the default file system for > Leopard. We are exploring it as a file system option for high-end > storage systems with really large storage. As a result, we have > included ZFS -- a read-only copy of ZFS -- in Leopard."I don''t get it. What possible use is "read only" ZFS? So that people can see if their FC array can be mounted on Leopard beta? I must be missing the point here. --Toby
Toby Thain, et al, I am guessing here, but to just be able to access the FS data locally without the headaches of verifying FS consistency, write caches, etc. Mitchell Erblich ---------------- Toby Thain wrote:> > On 13-Jun-07, at 1:14 PM, Rick Mann wrote: > > >> From (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;? > >> articleID=199903525) > > > > ... Croll explained, "ZFS is not the default file system for > > Leopard. We are exploring it as a file system option for high-end > > storage systems with really large storage. As a result, we have > > included ZFS -- a read-only copy of ZFS -- in Leopard." > > I don''t get it. What possible use is "read only" ZFS? > > So that people can see if their FC array can be mounted on Leopard > beta? I must be missing the point here. > > --Toby > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Robert Smicinski
2007-Jun-13 17:25 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS
So you can migrate all your ZFS volumes to HFS+ ;-)>>> Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> 6/13/2007 12:22 PM >>>On 13-Jun-07, at 1:14 PM, Rick Mann wrote:>> From (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;? >> articleID=199903525) > > ... Croll explained, "ZFS is not the default file system for > Leopard. We are exploring it as a file system option for high-end > storage systems with really large storage. As a result, we have > included ZFS -- a read-only copy of ZFS -- in Leopard."I don''t get it. What possible use is "read only" ZFS? So that people can see if their FC array can be mounted on Leopard beta? I must be missing the point here. --Toby _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On June 13, 2007 9:14:48 AM -0700 Rick Mann <rmann at latencyzero.com> wrote:>> From >> (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=199903 >> 525)...> In a follow-up interview today, Croll explained, "ZFS is not the default > file system for Leopard. We are exploring it as a file system option for > high-end storage systems with really large storage. As a result, we have > included ZFS -- a read-only copy of ZFS -- in Leopard." [...]ouch! This really does disservice to zfs. -frank
So it''s been what, a day (2?) and no one has tried to import a pool on the Leopard beta? -frank
On 13-Jun-07, at 4:09 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:> On June 13, 2007 9:14:48 AM -0700 Rick Mann <rmann at latencyzero.com> > wrote: >>> From >>> (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;? >>> articleID=199903 >>> 525) > ... >> In a follow-up interview today, Croll explained, "ZFS is not the >> default >> file system for Leopard. We are exploring it as a file system >> option for >> high-end storage systems with really large storage. As a result, >> we have >> included ZFS -- a read-only copy of ZFS -- in Leopard." [...] > > ouch! This really does disservice to zfs.Nonetheless: A big greeting to all the Apple engineers on this list. Ohayo! We look forward to seeing the fruits of your labours. --Toby> > -frank > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
G.W.
2007-Jun-14 07:15 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Mac OS X.5 "Leopard": zfs works; sudo kextload /System/Library/zfs.kext
I know it''s a pain, but you have to spend money to download Apple''s betas, that is, pay their developer fee. If, however, this might inspire you to do this, you should know that zfs will run (read and write) on the latest build of Leopard, as Apple has (somewhat cryptically) said. Apple also has a "non-disclosure" clause on their developer memberships, but they appear to have already made a number of public statements about zfs in Leopard. So, here''s a generic (and clumsy) way to enable kernel extensions on a BSD system, of which Leopard is a variant (actually, it runs over a version of Darwin). And zfs is a kernel extension, and can be loaded like any other. The zpool and zfs commands below you already know if you follow this thread. Try this in terminal: % cd /System/Library/Extensions % ls -alF | less # This will show you all the kernel extensions, *.kext, in a pager [hit the space bar to page forward; on the last page you should see: ... drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... ntfs.kext/ drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... smbfs.kext/ drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... udf.kext/ drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... webdav_fs.kext/ drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... zfs.kext/ (END) # hit "q"; this gets you back to the terminal ... If you see zfs.kext, then the installer did indeed put it on your system. Then: % sudo kextload zfs.kext password: # enter your admin password; if that doesn''t work, become root with su You will get some error messages about the cache, probably from the files Extensions.kextcache and Extensions.mkext. But, zfs will load (at least it will on a G5 dual 2.7). zfs, zpool, now work, and man zfs, man zpool will give you a man page. As far as I can tell, this is the process to load a kernel extension on any BSD system, of which Mac OS X/Darwin is one (the others are FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD). HOWEVER, be aware that finder in almost any version of OSX tries to automount every possible file system. Leopard does this as well; unlike zfs and zpool under Solaris, Leopard automounts any pool created or imported with zpool, and sets the mountpoint under /Volumes, WITHOUT running zfs create, or set mountpoint: % zpool create zpool01 disk1 Automatically mounts in the finder and has the directory: /Volumes/zpool01 Again, this happens WITHOUT RUNNING zfs, which is quite different from Solaris. You will have to fiddle with permissions, and you might have to do something like: sudo chmod -R /Volumes/zpool01 a+rwx to make the entire pool writable (or some variant, g+rwx, etc.). But it will work. I haven''t tried using zfs quota, set mountpoint=, set share=, but set compression=on seems to work, but I don''t see much compression going on. On reboot (or after a crash, which is frequent on beta builds) the finder will, initially, not have the zfs kernel extension enabled, and will ask if you want to format the disk (or slice, or however you set it up). Click "ignore"; DO NOT FORMAT THE DISK. zfs already has, but the finder doesn''t know it yet. Repeat the kernel extension commands above. Then run: zpool import -f poolname You can also try zpool scrub, but I''m not sure if that helps. You should have all the files you copied on the zfs system before the crash (but no promises; mine were, but maybe yours will not). You can try "safe boot" with Leopard (hold down the shift key on boot), and that might disable some problematic kernel extensions. If someone knows how to modify Extensions.kextcache and Extensions.mkext, please let me know. After the bugs are worked out, Leopard should be a pretty good platform. Hope this helps. G.W. This message posted from opensolaris.org
Jan Spitalnik
2007-Jun-14 11:47 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Mac OS X.5 "Leopard": zfs works; sudo kextload /System/Library/zfs.kext
Hi, On 14.6.2007, at 9:15, G.W. wrote:> If someone knows how to modify Extensions.kextcache and > Extensions.mkext, please let me know. After the bugs are worked > out, Leopard should be a pretty good platform.You can recreate the kext cache like this: kextcache -k /System/Library/Extensions/ Also as far as zfs.kext loading is concerned you can create a StartupItem that will kexload it early in the boot and finder will not have problems with unknown device :-) see http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2003/10/21/startup.html -Spity
I''m curious about something. Wouldn''t ZFS `send` and `recv` be a perfect fit for Apple Time Machine in Leopard if glued together by some scripts? In this scenario you could have an external volume and simply send snapshots to it and reciprocate as needed with recv. Also, it would seem that Apple really can''t push ZFS into Mac OS X until evacuation of data and removal of vdevs is supported for pools. Once this is in place it would seem reasonable that Apple would more than want to push ZFS rw support into Leopard. This would then allow for very flexible and robust usage for desktop users as well in that folks will very often wish to manipulate their storage arrangement in terms of saying "woops, I didn''t mean to put that volume here permanently, I need to remove it!" This would especially be true of firewire/usb drives for "backups" and all sorts of questions that would arise. A simple, `remove` would be perfect to cure these blues.
George wrote:> I''m curious about something. Wouldn''t ZFS `send` and `recv` be a > perfect fit for Apple Time Machine in Leopard if glued together by > some scripts? In this scenario you could have an external volume and > simply send snapshots to it and reciprocate as needed with recv. > > Also, it would seem that Apple really can''t push ZFS into Mac OS X > until evacuation of data and removal of vdevs is supported for pools.Does hfs+ support this? I see no evidence that it does.> Once this is in place it would seem reasonable that Apple would more > than want to push ZFS rw support into Leopard. This would then allow > for very flexible and robust usage for desktop users as well in that > folks will very often wish to manipulate their storage arrangement in > terms of saying "woops, I didn''t mean to put that volume here > permanently, I need to remove it!" This would especially be true of > firewire/usb drives for "backups" and all sorts of questions that > would arise. A simple, `remove` would be perfect to cure these blues.More likely, they are trying to make sure it fits their integration time schedules. There is still a lot of development being done on ZFS. -- richard
> > Also, it would seem that Apple really can''t push ZFS into Mac OS X > > until evacuation of data and removal of vdevs is supported for pools. > > Does hfs+ support this? I see no evidence that it does.HFS+ isn''t a file system with integrated volume management. Any disks where no operating system resides on can be yanked out at will, not causing problems. Data movement, if necessary, has to be done by hand though, but at least you can remove disks. It''s the usual home user scenario, where a disk breaks but can''t be replaced immediately (usually financial or time constraints). Considering that the typical home user pools will be JBODs and not RAID-Z, I also think that vdev removal is necessary in these scenarios. -mg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 648 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070616/d3c94003/attachment.bin>
Mario Goebbels wrote:>>> Also, it would seem that Apple really can''t push ZFS into Mac OS X >>> until evacuation of data and removal of vdevs is supported for pools. >> Does hfs+ support this? I see no evidence that it does. > > HFS+ isn''t a file system with integrated volume management. Any disks > where no operating system resides on can be yanked out at will, not > causing problems.Please explain.> Data movement, if necessary, has to be done by hand > though, but at least you can remove disks. > > It''s the usual home user scenario, where a disk breaks but can''t be > replaced immediately (usually financial or time constraints). > Considering that the typical home user pools will be JBODs and not > RAID-Z, I also think that vdev removal is necessary in these scenarios.Single vdev zpools work very much like traditional file systems without volume managers, except that you have better resilience with ZFS. -- richard