zfs discuss - Jun 2009 - Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rodrigo E. De Le?n Plicet wrote:
>
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS
Maybe Apple will drop the server version of OS-X and will eliminate 
their only server hardware (Xserve) since all it manages to do is lose 
money for Apple and distracts from releasing the next iPhone?

Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server 
application.

Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
> Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server 
> application.
</OT>
It''s funny, but I suspect you just called a large portion of the mac 
userbase lunatics..  While my reasons my differ I wouldn''t disagree ;)

./C

</OT>

That''s quite a blanket statement.  MANY companies (including Oracle)
purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of their
price point and capabilities.  You easily could buy two Xserve RAIDs and
mirror them for what comparable arrays of the time cost.

-Aaron

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rodrigo E. De Le?n Plicet wrote:
>
>
>>
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS
>>
>
> Maybe Apple will drop the server version of OS-X and will eliminate their
> only server hardware (Xserve) since all it manages to do is lose money for
> Apple and distracts from releasing the next iPhone?
>
> Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server
> application.
>
> Bob
> --
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us,
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20090610/e8f9d062/attachment.html>

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Blew<aaronblew at gmail.com>
wrote:
> That''s quite a blanket statement.? MANY companies (including
Oracle)
> purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of their
> price point and capabilities.? You easily could buy two Xserve RAIDs and
> mirror them for what comparable arrays of the time cost.
>
> -Aaron
I''d very much doubt that, but I guess one can always push their time
budgets around ;-)

Alex.

>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> <bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rodrigo E. De Le?n Plicet wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS
>>
>> Maybe Apple will drop the server version of OS-X and will eliminate
their
>> only server hardware (Xserve) since all it manages to do is lose money
for
>> Apple and distracts from releasing the next iPhone?
>>
>> Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server
>> application.
>>
>> Bob
>> --
>> Bob Friesenhahn
>> bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us,
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
>> GraphicsMagick Maintainer, ? ?http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 

Josh Billings  - "Every man has his follies - and often they are the
most interesting thing he has got." -
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/josh_billings.html

On 10-Jun-09, at 7:25 PM, Alex Lam S.L. wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Blew<aaronblew at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> That''s quite a blanket statement.  MANY companies (including
Oracle)
>> purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of  
>> their
>> price point and capabilities.  You easily could buy two Xserve  
>> RAIDs and
>> mirror them for what comparable arrays of the time cost.
>>
>> -Aaron
>
> I''d very much doubt that, but I guess one can always push their
time
> budgets around ;-)
Hm, as someone who personally installed a 1st gen 1.1TB (half full)  
Xserve RAID + Xserve in a production environment, back when such a  
configuration cost AUD $40,000, I can tell you that it was child''s  
play to set up, and ran flawlessly. The cost halved within a few  
months, iirc. :)

--Toby
>
> Alex.
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
>> <bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rodrigo E. De Le?n Plicet wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple- 
>>>> Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS
>>>
>>> Maybe Apple will drop the server version of OS-X and will  
>>> eliminate their
>>> only server hardware (Xserve) since all it manages to do is lose  
>>> money for
>>> Apple and distracts from releasing the next iPhone?
>>>
>>> Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server
>>> application.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>> --
>>> Bob Friesenhahn
>>> bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us,
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/
>>> bfriesen/
>>> GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Josh Billings  - "Every man has his follies - and often they are the
> most interesting thing he has got." -
> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/josh_billings.html
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

It''s not pertinent to this sub-thread, but zfs (albeit read-only)
is already in currently shipping MacOS 10.5.  SO presumably it''ll
be in MacOS 10.6...

-- 
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA

URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
      http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer

There is a pretty active apple ZFS sourceforge group that provides RW 
bits for 10.5.

Things are oddly quiet concerning 10.6.  I am curious about how this 
will turn out myself.

Jerry


Rich Teer wrote:
> It''s not pertinent to this sub-thread, but zfs (albeit read-only)
> is already in currently shipping MacOS 10.5.  SO presumably it''ll
> be in MacOS 10.6...
>

On 11 jun 2009, at 10:48, Jerry K wrote:
> There is a pretty active apple ZFS sourceforge group that provides  
> RW bits for 10.5.
>
> Things are oddly quiet concerning 10.6.  I am curious about how this  
> will turn out myself.
>
> Jerry
>
>
Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk  
usage of Snow Leopard
is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compression.
Either they have implemented compressed binaries or they use  
filesystem compression.
Neither feature is present in Leopard AFAIK..
Filesystem compression is a ZFS feature, so ????

	Paul

Disclaimer, even though I work for Sun, I have no idea what''s going on
regarding Apple and ZFS.

> Rich Teer wrote:
>> It''s not pertinent to this sub-thread, but zfs (albeit
read-only)
>> is already in currently shipping MacOS 10.5.  SO presumably
it''ll
>> be in MacOS 10.6...
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:44, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
>
> Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk  
> usage of Snow Leopard
> is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compression.
> Either they have implemented compressed binaries or they use  
> filesystem compression.
> Neither feature is present in Leopard AFAIK..
> Filesystem compression is a ZFS feature, so ????
I think this is because they are removing PowerPC support from the  
binaries.

Sami

On 11 jun 2009, at 11:48, Sami Ketola wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:44, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
>>
>> Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk  
>> usage of Snow Leopard
>> is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compression.
>> Either they have implemented compressed binaries or they use  
>> filesystem compression.
>> Neither feature is present in Leopard AFAIK..
>> Filesystem compression is a ZFS feature, so ????
>
> I think this is because they are removing PowerPC support from the  
> binaries.
>
I really doubt the PPC specific code is 6GB. A few 100 MB perhaps.
Most of a fat binary or an .app folder is architecture independent and  
will remain.
And Phil Schiller specifically mentioned it was because of compression.

	Paul

On 11 Jun 2009, at 10:52, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
>
> On 11 jun 2009, at 11:48, Sami Ketola wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:44, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
>>>
>>> Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk
>>> usage of Snow Leopard
>>> is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compression.
>>> Either they have implemented compressed binaries or they use  
>>> filesystem compression.
>>> Neither feature is present in Leopard AFAIK..
>>> Filesystem compression is a ZFS feature, so ????
>>
>> I think this is because they are removing PowerPC support from the  
>> binaries.
>>
>
> I really doubt the PPC specific code is 6GB. A few 100 MB perhaps.
> Most of a fat binary or an .app folder is architecture independent  
> and will remain.
> And Phil Schiller specifically mentioned it was because of  
> compression.
They might just have changed the localized resources format from a  
directory (English.lproj) containing loads of files into a zip file.

There''s probably a better place to discuss this.

Cheers,

Chris

Paul van der Zwan wrote:
> Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk usage 
> of Snow Leopard
> is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compression.
> Either they have implemented compressed binaries or they use filesystem 
> compression.
> Neither feature is present in Leopard AFAIK..
> Filesystem compression is a ZFS feature, so ????
HFS+ now has filesystem compression.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/10/25/new_snow_leopard_seed_leak_confirms_cocoa_finder_more.html

On Jun 11, 2009, at 05:44, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
> Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk  
> usage of Snow Leopard is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of  
> compression.
It''s probably 6 GB because Leopard (10.5) ran on both Intel and  
PowerPC chips ("Universal" binaries) but Snow Leopard (10.6) only runs
on Intel; they probably stripped all the PowerPC bits.

Even things like ls(1) are universal binaries, so if you take every  
program and library, and cut it''s use by half, it can add up to quite  
a bit.