Update: In the comments Mark claims that the ZFS reference in Apple’s Leopard, the next version of Mac OS X, proves that Apple is, in fact, working on porting ZFS:
All filesystems on MacOS X are implemented using what’s called VFS plugins, these interact with the kernel. The vnode is the focus of all file activity, that list tells me that the vnode is now ZFS aware which means there is or was a corresponding VFS plugin in a lab somewhere.
Look at the file list, those are all the VFS types the MacOS X XNU kernel supports…+1. If they’ve added ZFS to the vnode.h list it means it was or has been in development. If it was in development it’ll vanish from that list when the next build is released, if it still is in development it’ll stay.
I haven’t seen this interpretation anywhere else, so I’m off searching for independent confirmation, as I don’t have the Unix chops to make heads or tails of it. Yet for those of us who want to see computing’s state of the art advance this is a heartening thought.
Thank You, John Siracusa
Ars Technica’s John Siracusa went out of his way to make me [where “me” = the class of folks who thought Apple’s new Time Machine meant ZFS on Leopard] feel better in his recent post Time Machine and the future of the file system when he said
. . . it’s seemed like accepted wisdom among the denizens of Mac web forums and blogs that Apple was moving to ZFS. Time Machine seemed like an official confirmation of what everyone expected. Just google for “zfs leopard snapshots” to see how many people came to the same conclusion when Time Machine was announced. All the pieces fit. Too bad it’s not true.
The snapshot/ZFS revelation was debunked nearly as quickly as it sprang up. Although all of WWDC except for the keynote is covered by an non-disclosure agreement, the particulars of Time Machine’s implementation were some of the very first technical details to leak.
Leak Here First!
And some of that leaking first occurred here on StorageMojo.com, I’m pleased to say. See the comments to the post Is Apple’s Time Machine Built On Sun’s ZFS?. If you are wondering why ZFS is cool, see ZFS: Threat or Menace? Pt. I.
But Wait! There’s More!
Over at this Apple Insider thread someone had the bright idea to ask a Leopard beta user to search for references to ZFS. And guess what? He found one:
Originally Posted by shadow
Someone who has Leopard: go to Spotlight and search for ZFS. Got something?
Yes. There is no file system bundle for it, nor is there a mount utility or any other one (no fsck, now newfs, etc.). There is, however, a changed vnode.h:
code:
enum vtagtype {
VT_NON, VT_UFS, VT_NFS, VT_MFS, VT_MSDOSFS, VT_LFS, VT_LOFS, VT_FDESC,
VT_PORTAL, VT_NULL, VT_UMAP, VT_KERNFS, VT_PROCFS, VT_AFS, VT_ISOFS,
VT_UNION, VT_HFS, VT_ZFS, VT_DEVFS, VT_WEBDAV, VT_UDF, VT_AFP,
VT_CDDA, VT_CIFS,VT_OTHER};
I Have No Idea
What including ZFS in an incomprehensible list means, if anything. I don’t feel too bad, because none of the smart folks on that forum seemed to know either.
So, John, Why Do You Say That?
While not holding out any hope of ZFS on Leopard, John did allow as how
. . . what I did expect was a new file system from Apple. Not a port or a fork of an open source file system, but a brand-new, home-grown, kick-ass file system created by Apple’s own team of engineers.
John, why fan the flames of Apple’s NIH syndrome? With some exceptions, Apple is not a plumbing company, and file systems are plumbing. Sun supported the ZFS team for six years while they built ZFS. What is the chance of Apple mounting a similar effort? Somewhere between zip and near-zip IMHO.
The Takeaway
StorageMojo.com has devoted time to this issue because today’s computer business is largely driven by consumer computing, not enterprise computing. Putting a really modern integrated file and storage management system on a consumer OS would raise the bar for everyone else. Until something better happens along, ZFS appears to be the best option. Here’s hoping the Apple engineering gnomes are beavering away to port ZFS to an Apple OS near us. Soon.
Robin, and I say this with a smile on my face considering I disagree with you on a lot of storage related issues, especially the GFS snake oil, but you’re a moron.
This is a case of someone looking for quartz and striking gold.
All filesystems on MacOS X are implemented using what’s called VFS plugins, these interact with the kernel. The vnode is the focus of all file activity, that list tells me that the vnode is now ZFS aware which means there is or was a corresponding VFS plugin in a lab somewhere.
Look at the file list, those are all the VFS types the MacOS X XNU kernel supports…+1. If they’ve added ZFS to the vnode.h list it means it was or has been in development. If it was in development it’ll vanish from that list when the next build is released, if it still is in development it’ll stay.
Mark, thanks for clearing that up for confused StorageMojo.com readers.
If I read what you are saying correctly, this does indicate that Apple is working on ZFS. That’s very good news. Would you please go over to the Apple Insider forum I linked to and tell them what this means? They don’t seem to get it.
Just one thing: I may ignorant, which I freely admitted to in the post – so I’m not totally ignorant, but I have to refuse to accept honorific “moron”. Some of our elected officials in Washington D.C. have taken that one to new lows and I just don’t think I can compete. Cheers.
That’s low class calling Robin a moron. The whole discsussion about ZFS comes from a post on Apple’s listservs. It’s not like it was pulled out of thin air. Leopard was probably too early to implement ZFS but I’d bet that Apple is watching Sun’s work on this and we could see ZFS by 10.6 in a couple of years
Why is ZFS on Apple such a big deal? Is there anything that is really needed in a consumer space that ZFS fills? I understand on the server side a move by Apple to ZFS would be a thing of beauty, but for the consumer is there really any benefit?
John, that is a very good question. I spent more time on it in ZFS On Leopard: How Cool Is That?
A couple of key points:
I’m sure smart engineers could come up with more cool things for the single user, but your question prompts me to wonder – in the multi-PC home with fast wireless networks will there be a dividing line between low-end servers and single user systems? Hm-m.
Why is ZFS on Apple such a big deal?
Because it won’t be on Linux for a long time, if ever and never on Windows.
The “Nexenta” OS is listed at DistroWatch and mentioned in some Sun Blogs.
It is the OpenSolaris kernel, GNU Linux plus Debian Linux. ZFS is available with the OpenSolaris kernel and Linux features are available with GNU and Debian Linux.
To test drive ZFS many people install VMware, the VMware server is free at the moment, over Linux or Windows. Then they install OpenSolaris, or Solaris 10 which is free, and play with ZFS. The reports of replacing LVM (Linux) operations and tasks are ecstatic. Much easier to use. Much more powerful.
At the Personal Computing, SOHO and low-end SMB, Robin’s “media servers. Someone is going to win big here” is very true. The business driver for all SMBs will be “The Long Tail”.
In an IT world becoming increasingly “Information Centric” ZFS is currently the best tool available.
“John, why fan the flames of Apple’s NIH syndrome?”
Their what now? Apple’s whole OS was NIH! 🙂 Then there’s KHTML/KJS, Postfix, Apache, SQLite, OpenSSH, ZeroConf, Jabber, OpenGL, and on and on. Apple’s clearly over that particular syndrome.
OK, then I’ll flip it around: why encourage them to build something they no longer have the experience for? 😉
Seriously, unless they got an early start and did a suitably brilliant design job, they’ll be hard pressed to beat ZFS. Of course, if they did, I’d love it, because we all benefit.
So John, I’ll bet you a beer at the Tied House in Mountain View (I’m assuming you are in the Valley somewhere) that Apple goes with ZFS. Do I have a bet?
What does “go with ZFS” mean? Apple’s already revealed that they’d like to port ZFS to Mac OS X–and even if they didn’t, someone else would. Here are some more interesting questions. Will the ZFS port be done in time for 10.5.0? If it is, will it ship with Leopard? Will ZFS replace HFS+ as the default volume format for Mac OS X? If so, when? If not, then what will?
I think HFS+ will remain the default volume format in Leopard. I don’t think the ZFS port will be ready in time for 10.5.0 (it may work enough to play with, but the port won’t be “production ready” for some time). I also don’t think ZFS will replace HFS+ as the default volume format for Mac OS X in the next two years.
I think Apple has the expertise and experience in-house to make a new file system for Mac OS X. Whether it chooses to do so or not remains to be seen.
OK, John, I see you are a right coast denizen – so I’ll modify that wager to a drink at the Regattabar, or the microbrewery of your choice in the metropolitan area.
To be more sporting, I’ll bet that Apple supports ZFS as the default file system on at least one version of Mac OS by September 1, 2007.
FWIW, I *don’t* believe Apple has the expertise to produce a product as advanced as ZFS in the next two years. I’ve met the ZFS team and I was very impressed – and I’ve worked with some very smart teams. I know, Apple’s hired some super smart FS guys in the last couple of years, and if you ask them, they can do even *better*. But they wouldn’t be very smart engineers if they didn’t believe they could be better, now would they?
If Apple wants to keep the pressure up on Vista, ZFS is one ballsy way to do it. I think they’re going for it. In the next 12 months. I’m looking forward to ice-cold vodka Gimlet, up, with cool jazz in the background. See you there, John.
Does “at least one version of Mac OS” include Mac OS X Server or not? Alas, I’m not a betting man and I don’t really drink either. I’ve already said what I have to say on the topic, and my comments were confined to Mac OS X (non-server), in case that wasn’t clear. Now we just wait and see…
ha-ha
zfs has no newfs or (especially) fsck. management and checking are done via zpool & zfs utils and there is no reason to change this in any way.