Wondering if anyone at WWDC has poked around the kexts, etc. for ZFS. It seemed oddly missing today at the keynote in light of last week''s announcement. Is it too early to announce it due to some functions that are still being added and thus Apple baking two versions of Time Machine (one with and one w/o ZFS)? Curiosity...
Yea, What is the deal with this? I am so bummed :( What the heck was Sun''s CEO talking about the other day? And why the heck did Apple not include at least non-default ZFS support in Leopard? If no ZFS in Leapard, then what is all the Apple-induced-hype about? A trapezoidal Dock table? A transparent menu bar? Can anyone explain the absence of ZFS in Leopard??? I signed up for this forum just to post this. This message posted from opensolaris.org
On 12-Jun-07, at 9:23 AM, Sunstar Dude wrote:> Yea, What is the deal with this? ... > Can anyone explain the absence of ZFS in Leopard??? I signed up for > this forum just to post this.Steve giveth and Steve taketh away. --Toby> > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
we know time machine requires an extra disk (local or remote) so its reasonable to guess the non bootable "time machine disk" could use zfs. someone with a Leopard dvd (Rick Mann) could answer this...
Yeah this is pretty sad, we had such plans for actually using our apple (PPC) hardware in our datacenter for something other than AFP and web serving. It also shows how limited apples vision seems to be. For 2 CEO''s not to be on the same page demonstrates that there is something else going on rather than just "we chose not to put a future ready file system into our next OS". And how its being dismissed by apple is quite upsetting. I wonder when we will see Johnny-cat and Steve-o in the same room talking about it. On 6/12/07 8:23 AM, "Sunstar Dude" <boettnerz at yahoo.com> wrote:> Yea, What is the deal with this? I am so bummed :( What the heck was Sun''s CEO > talking about the other day? And why the heck did Apple not include at least > non-default ZFS support in Leopard? If no ZFS in Leapard, then what is all the > Apple-induced-hype about? A trapezoidal Dock table? A transparent menu bar? > > Can anyone explain the absence of ZFS in Leopard??? I signed up for this forum > just to post this. > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discussAndy Lubel --
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
2007-Jun-12 15:40 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Apple WWDC Keynote Absence
On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Andy Lubel wrote:> Yeah this is pretty sad, we had such plans for actually using our > apple > (PPC) hardware in our datacenter for something other than AFP and web > serving. > > It also shows how limited apples vision seems to be.I think you are jumping to conclusions> For 2 CEO''s not to be > on the same page demonstrates that there is something else going on > rather > than just "we chose not to put a future ready file system into our > next OS". > And how its being dismissed by apple is quite upsetting.I think you are jumping to conclusions. Jonathon jumped the gun on something. Chad> > > I wonder when we will see Johnny-cat and Steve-o in the same room > talking > about it. > > > On 6/12/07 8:23 AM, "Sunstar Dude" <boettnerz at yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Yea, What is the deal with this? I am so bummed :( What the heck >> was Sun''s CEO >> talking about the other day? And why the heck did Apple not include >> at least >> non-default ZFS support in Leopard? If no ZFS in Leapard, then what >> is all the >> Apple-induced-hype about? A trapezoidal Dock table? A transparent >> menu bar? >> >> Can anyone explain the absence of ZFS in Leopard??? I signed up for >> this forum >> just to post this. >> >> >> This message posted from opensolaris.org >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > Andy Lubel > > > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Apple''s strength is the desktop, Sun''s is the datacenter. There''s no need to have ZFS on the desktop, just as there''s no need to have HFS+ in the datacenter. There is a need to improve ZFS in the datacenter, however, and I wish Sun had invested their time in getting dynamic LUN expansion going instead of working on a port to OS/X.>>> Andy Lubel <andy.lubel at gtsi.com> 6/12/2007 11:37 AM >>>Yeah this is pretty sad, we had such plans for actually using our apple (PPC) hardware in our datacenter for something other than AFP and web serving. It also shows how limited apples vision seems to be. For 2 CEO''s not to be on the same page demonstrates that there is something else going on rather than just "we chose not to put a future ready file system into our next OS". And how its being dismissed by apple is quite upsetting. I wonder when we will see Johnny-cat and Steve-o in the same room talking about it. On 6/12/07 8:23 AM, "Sunstar Dude" <boettnerz at yahoo.com> wrote:> Yea, What is the deal with this? I am so bummed :( What the heck was Sun''s CEO > talking about the other day? And why the heck did Apple not include at least > non-default ZFS support in Leopard? If no ZFS in Leapard, then what is all the > Apple-induced-hype about? A trapezoidal Dock table? A transparent menu bar? > > Can anyone explain the absence of ZFS in Leopard??? I signed up for this forum > just to post this. > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discussAndy Lubel -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Robert Smicinski wrote:> Apple''s strength is the desktop, Sun''s is the datacenter.Agreed, to a large extent.> There''s no need to have ZFS on the desktop, just as there''s no need > to have HFS+ in the datacenter.I strongly disagree with the first clause of that sentence. There''s no reason why one wouldn''t want to have mirrored file systems on a workstation, or make use of snapshots and clones. All three of those features are supplied rather handily by ZFS. ZFS isn''t just about easily creating massive pools of data, although admitedly that is the first feature most people mention.> There is a need to improve ZFS in the datacenter, however, and I wish > Sun had invested their time in getting dynamic LUN expansion going > instead of working on a port to OS/X.I have no insider knowledge, but I don''t think Sun invested much time in this. I believe Apple''s engineers did most of the work. -- 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
Group, Isn''t Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive personal computer / small business environment? IE, Plug and play. Thus, even though ZFS is able to work as the default FS, should it be the default FS for the small system environment where your average user, wants it more to work, and cares less about administration issues. It/ZFS almost, IMO, needs to check mistakes with configuration in the first case, where the larger business environment can have one or more dedicated admins that are more adapt to config and tuning issues. Mitchell Erblich ---------------- Rich Teer wrote:> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Robert Smicinski wrote: > > > Apple''s strength is the desktop, Sun''s is the datacenter. > > Agreed, to a large extent. > > > There''s no need to have ZFS on the desktop, just as there''s no need > > to have HFS+ in the datacenter. > > I strongly disagree with the first clause of that sentence. There''s > no reason why one wouldn''t want to have mirrored file systems on a > workstation, or make use of snapshots and clones. All three of those > features are supplied rather handily by ZFS. > > ZFS isn''t just about easily creating massive pools of data, although > admitedly that is the first feature most people mention. > > > There is a need to improve ZFS in the datacenter, however, and I wish > > Sun had invested their time in getting dynamic LUN expansion going > > instead of working on a port to OS/X. > > I have no insider knowledge, but I don''t think Sun invested much time > in this. I believe Apple''s engineers did most of the work. > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:54 -0700, Erblichs wrote:> Group, > > Isn''t Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive > personal computer / small business environment? > IE, Plug and play.Warning, real case to follow, not a what if scenario: Over the past 10 years, I''ve been slowly but surely ripping my vinyl records to disk. This is quite a common operation on a PC or Mac, that you have an ipod or any other music player, or simply to archive to CD (DVD now). Imagine my disgust when silent corruption destroyed a good bit of this. Not only that but since no actual error had occurred as far as the file system or OS was concerned, the backup itself was copying garbage on all the files that had been silently corrupted. Oh, the checksum matched what was on disk, it just had been corrupted all along and getting worse. Early on I would rip to wav, burn an audio CD and archive that. After a while I had assumed I would be safe with a mirrored disk pair and a backup. bzzt. wrong. So much for plug and play. That was 2006. Enter ZFS. All my computers now run Solaris on the desktop. ZFS everywhere. Never again will I have to deal with this problem. Francois
On 12-Jun-07, at 1:54 PM, Erblichs wrote:> Group, > > Isn''t Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive > personal computer / small business environment? > IE, Plug and play. > > Thus, even though ZFS is able to work as the default > FS, should it be the default FS for the small system > environment where your average user, wants it more to > work, and cares less about administration issues.This is exactly why it should be (and surely will be, but evidently not in 10.5) - as Fran?ois and others have observed. It''s absurd to claim that people''s "Digital Lives" (as sold by Apple) do not deserve the same protection as some Oracle accounts payable. It has always bothered me the way this has been oversold: Put your whole life - music, mail, photos, video, bookmarks, love letters, unfinished novel - on a single 300GB drive then lose the lot either by bitwise attrition or catastrophic end of lifespan. [I believe consumer machines should sell out of the box with 2 mirrored drives (and easy end user procedure to replace). But that''s just me.] Rewind to the year 2000 and prior, when people would make the same argument about UNIX: "Apple''s stupid for pretending you can put a best of breed O/S on consumer desktops. It''s too complex! It''s too fragile! It''s just too damn powerful!" Well, here we are, and they did it. ZFS will be the same story. This is how Mr Jobs works. Have vision, will ship: And ZFS is just the sort of disruptive, generational shift that would catch his attention. IMHO.> > It/ZFS almost, IMO, needs to check mistakes with configuration > in the first case, where the larger business environment > can have one or more dedicated admins that are more adapt > to config and tuning issues.UNIX on your grandmother''s iMac. Who knew? --Toby> > Mitchell Erblich > ---------------- > > Rich Teer wrote: >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Robert Smicinski wrote: >> >>> Apple''s strength is the desktop, Sun''s is the datacenter. >> >> Agreed, to a large extent. >> >>> There''s no need to have ZFS on the desktop, just as there''s no need >>> to have HFS+ in the datacenter. >> >> I strongly disagree with the first clause of that sentence. There''s >> no reason why one wouldn''t want to have mirrored file systems on a >> workstation, or make use of snapshots and clones. All three of those >> features are supplied rather handily by ZFS. >> >> ZFS isn''t just about easily creating massive pools of data, although >> admitedly that is the first feature most people mention. >> >>> There is a need to improve ZFS in the datacenter, however, and I >>> wish >>> Sun had invested their time in getting dynamic LUN expansion going >>> instead of working on a port to OS/X. >> >> I have no insider knowledge, but I don''t think Sun invested much time >> in this. I believe Apple''s engineers did most of the work. >> >> -- >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I agree wholeheartedly. This ZFS is a must for desktop, small business and enterprise. I''ve been hanging out in #zfs and reading quite a bit over the last couple weeks and I will never trust my data again unless I have ZFS in place. I look to transfer this to my clients'' setups as well somehow and certainly will be running Solaris as a SAN until Apple gets its act together. I certainly dislike much of Solaris in terms of userland methodology, but kernel-wise I''d like to see OS X gutted and xnu replaced by Solaris any day, at least at the moment. We''ll have to see how things shape up with Leopard and see if they''ve changed any of the underpinnings significantly. On 6/12/07, Toby Thain <toby at smartgames.ca> wrote:> > On 12-Jun-07, at 1:54 PM, Erblichs wrote: > > > Group, > > > > Isn''t Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive > > personal computer / small business environment? > > IE, Plug and play. > > > > Thus, even though ZFS is able to work as the default > > FS, should it be the default FS for the small system > > environment where your average user, wants it more to > > work, and cares less about administration issues. > > > This is exactly why it should be (and surely will be, but evidently > not in 10.5) - as Fran?ois and others have observed. It''s absurd to > claim that people''s "Digital Lives" (as sold by Apple) do not deserve > the same protection as some Oracle accounts payable. It has always > bothered me the way this has been oversold: Put your whole life - > music, mail, photos, video, bookmarks, love letters, unfinished novel > - on a single 300GB drive then lose the lot either by bitwise > attrition or catastrophic end of lifespan. > > [I believe consumer machines should sell out of the box with 2 > mirrored drives (and easy end user procedure to replace). But that''s > just me.] > > Rewind to the year 2000 and prior, when people would make the same > argument about UNIX: "Apple''s stupid for pretending you can put a > best of breed O/S on consumer desktops. It''s too complex! It''s too > fragile! It''s just too damn powerful!" Well, here we are, and they > did it. ZFS will be the same story. > > This is how Mr Jobs works. Have vision, will ship: And ZFS is just > the sort of disruptive, generational shift that would catch his > attention. > > IMHO. > > > > > It/ZFS almost, IMO, needs to check mistakes with configuration > > in the first case, where the larger business environment > > can have one or more dedicated admins that are more adapt > > to config and tuning issues. > > UNIX on your grandmother''s iMac. Who knew? > > --Toby > > > > > Mitchell Erblich > > ---------------- > > > > Rich Teer wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Robert Smicinski wrote: > >> > >>> Apple''s strength is the desktop, Sun''s is the datacenter. > >> > >> Agreed, to a large extent. > >> > >>> There''s no need to have ZFS on the desktop, just as there''s no need > >>> to have HFS+ in the datacenter. > >> > >> I strongly disagree with the first clause of that sentence. There''s > >> no reason why one wouldn''t want to have mirrored file systems on a > >> workstation, or make use of snapshots and clones. All three of those > >> features are supplied rather handily by ZFS. > >> > >> ZFS isn''t just about easily creating massive pools of data, although > >> admitedly that is the first feature most people mention. > >> > >>> There is a need to improve ZFS in the datacenter, however, and I > >>> wish > >>> Sun had invested their time in getting dynamic LUN expansion going > >>> instead of working on a port to OS/X. > >> > >> I have no insider knowledge, but I don''t think Sun invested much time > >> in this. I believe Apple''s engineers did most of the work. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> zfs-discuss mailing list > >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > > zfs-discuss mailing list > > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
My guess is that Jonathan''s WWDC pre-announcement last week is was probably why there''s no ZFS in the WWDC beta. Anybody remember what happend to ATI when they did that? It wasn''t good. This message posted from opensolaris.org
On June 12, 2007 12:08:05 PM -0700 Deron Hull <deron at hulls.net> wrote:> My guess is that Jonathan''s WWDC pre-announcement last week is was > probably why there''s no ZFS in the WWDC beta.I''m sure the discs were made long before Jonathan''s statement. -frank
Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn''t want ZFS in OS X - Solaris competition - and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X that Steve Jobs would drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this was intentionally done by Schwartz to keep ZFS out of a competing OS. Just a thought. Whatever the reason, I''m very bummed to not have heard mention of ZFS yesterday by Steve Jobs. This message posted from opensolaris.org
On 12-Jun-07, at 4:38 PM, Sunstar Dude wrote:> Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn''t want ZFS in OS X - Solaris > competition - and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X > that Steve Jobs would drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this > was intentionally done by Schwartz to keep ZFS out of a competing > OS. Just a thought.That would go against everything Jonathan stands for. (I don''t believe he''s fabricating his commitment to openness, collaboration and platform building, and I think Apple''s adoption is GREAT for Sun.) --Toby (who''s afraid of tweaking the thread nannies if this continues...)> > Whatever the reason, I''m very bummed to not have heard mention of > ZFS yesterday by Steve Jobs. > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn''t want ZFS in OS X - Solaris competition - and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X that Steve Jobs would drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this was intentionally done by Schwartz to keep ZFS out of a competing OS. Just a thought. > > Whatever the reason, I''m very bummed to not have heard mention of ZFS yesterday by Steve Jobs.Don''t get carried away. OS X is a very complex piece of software as all OS''es are today. Incorporating a feature like zfs is not simply a question of pulling a single program in or out. It must mature and that takes a while. And as another pointed out those DVD''s that Apple handed out had probably all ready been burned. I would suggest that this thread will be moved to an apple-related list since it has nothing to do with zfs anymore. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare
> I would suggest that this thread will be moved to an > apple-related > list since it has nothing to do with zfs anymore.Hmm, I don''t know how you figure this has nothing to do with zfs. This is all about zfs and seems to me zfs-discuss is the perfect thread for it. This message posted from opensolaris.org
> > I would suggest that this thread will be moved to an > > apple-related > > list since it has nothing to do with zfs anymore. > > Hmm, I don''t know how you figure this has nothing to do with zfs. This is all about zfs and seems to me zfs-discuss is the perfect thread for it.Because the discussion turned into what we thought was Apple''s real motive(s) not using zfs as leopard''s default fs. But we do not know whether Apple has actually decided on nor how far Apple actually is in implementing zfs in leopard if they indeed decide to make zfs the default. And the posts related to leopard handed out at wwdc 07 seems to indicate that zfs is not yet fully implemented, which might be the real reason that zfs isn''t the default fs. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare
Anton B. Rang
2007-Jun-18 01:38 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: ZFS Apple WWDC Keynote Absence
>And the posts related to leopard handed out at wwdc 07 seems to >indicate that zfs is not yet fully implemented, which might be the >real reason that zfs isn''t the default fs.I suspect there are two other strong reasons why it''s not the default. 1. ZFS is a new and immature file system. HFS+ has a proven track record and most of its bugs have been long since ironed out. (Since it''s open-source, you can go look at how quickly it''s changing these days.) It would be ludicrous to make a new file system the default for everyone. (This isn''t unique to Apple, nor to ZFS. Look at the rollout for XFS on Irix, for instance.) 2. ZFS doesn''t make much sense for high-performance laptops. Laptop drives are slow enough without artificially increasing the number of seeks on writes. Apple makes a LOT of money from laptops. It''s also unclear how well ZFS would play with other latency- and CPU-sensitive applications such as video. Not that it''s bad, we just don''t know yet. Apple may well release a read/write ZFS implementation. But (my predictions) it won''t be a ?default? file system any time soon, it will be rolled out for use by early adopters first; and it will be after it?s had at least a couple of years to stabilize. This message posted from opensolaris.org
Mario Goebbels
2007-Jun-18 10:36 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: ZFS Apple WWDC Keynote Absence
> 2. ZFS doesn''t make much sense for high-performance laptops. Laptop drives are slow enough without artificially increasing the number of seeks on writes. Apple makes a LOT of money from laptops. It''s also unclear how well ZFS would play with other latency- and CPU-sensitive applications such as video. Not that it''s bad, we just don''t know yet.You are aware that one things ZFS does is to group writes (through ZIL), so it can write them out sequentially and possibly all in the same place? On top of that you get prefetching. Having the filesystem read escalator sorted big chunks into the cache instead of non-stop issuing small requests may also save some power and improve latency (though in this case, there would need to be an attribute limiting the amount of data to be read in one swoop for certain applications. Having ZFS read like 100 megabytes in one go might produce spikes in CPU usage). -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/20070618/865baad1/attachment.bin>