On TV.com: 2009's Most PIRATED TV Show
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

October 25th, 2009

Mac ZFS is dead: RIP.

Posted by Robin Harris @ 11:34 pm

Categories: Infrastructure, Software

Tags: NetApp Inc., Apple Macintosh, Sun Microsystems Inc., File System, Apple Inc., Mac ZFS, Current File System, Storage, Hardware, Robin Harris

PC file system progress stalled this week with the news on MacOSforge that Apple’s ZFS project is dead.

ZFS Project Shutdown 2009-10-23
The ZFS project has been discontinued. The mailing list and repository will also be removed shortly.

ZFS, developed by Sun engineers, is the first 21st century file system. NTFS and HFS+ are firmly rooted in the 1980s. ZFS has a lot of cool features:

  • End-to-end data integrity. Current file systems are prone to many problems - ranging from phantom writes to inconsistent error-handling - that mess up your data. The ZFS architecture eliminated them with parent block checksums.
  • Pooled storage. Add a drive and it adds extra capacity, not another volume. Less management.
  • No need for journaling. Which is one problem Solid State Drives don’t handle well. Get rid of it and SSDs work better.
  • Built-in RAID that is as fast as hardware RAID. Get data protection for a lower cost.
  • Low-cost snapshot copy. As a copy-on-write system, ZFS can create new snapshots - once an hour, minute or second - with low CPU and storage overhead. Cruise back in time to just before the virus hit, recover, and life is good.

Apple announced in June ‘08 that Snow Leopard server would support ZFS. But things came apart early this year.

What happened?
Jeff Bonwick, ZFS architect, posted Saturday on an earlier quoted comment:

> Apple can currently just take the ZFS CDDL code and incorporate it
> (like they did with DTrace), but it may be that they wanted a “private
> license” from Sun (with appropriate technical support and
> indemnification), and the two entities couldn’t come to mutually
> agreeable terms.

I cannot disclose details, but that is the essence of it.

Jeff

Indemnification?
Sun is being sued by NetApp, a $3B enterprise storage company, claiming that ZFS infringes on NetApp patents. If NetApp won, Apple would find itself in a tough position unless Sun shouldered the financial damage. That’s indemnification.

Sun has made a (IMHO) strong case that NetApp’s patents should be invalidated by prior art. But with all their other problems and the Oracle purchase it was a headache they and Oracle didn’t need.

Where does Apple go from here?
Apple has hired some smart file system engineers and wants to hire more to work on “state-of-the-art file system technologies for Mac OS X.”

But writing new file systems isn’t easy. It takes 5-7 years for a new file system to achieve the maturity needed to support large-scale deployment.

So if Apple is starting from scratch we have a long wait for real innovation to appear. Like Mac OS XII.

What about Microsoft?
Redmond’s file system gurus are well aware of NTFS issues. And under the covers they are making stepwise enhancements to the architecture and implementation.

But as the NTFS and HFS+ architectures age and the pace of storage innovation increases the gap between what is and what could be grows. It’s like putting a 1001 hp Bugatti engine in a Model T: the power is there but you can’t use it.

The Storage Bits take
This kind of cock-up makes me hate software patents - but that’s another post. As long as law allows companies will try to enforce them.

NetApp missed a golden opportunity to raise their visibility in the consumer market by cutting a deal with Apple directly. “NetApp is powering Apple’s advanced storage technologies” would make the company a lot more visible outside the enterprise market.

NetApp is a good company, but they’ve lost their way lately. Note to new CEO Tom Georgens: with EMC moving aggressively into the consumer space you don’t have forever to reposition NetApp for a consumer-driven world.

Steve Jobs doesn’t get storage. Consumers are generating masses of video and photos at an accelerating pace - and they’ll need reliable, available and dirt-easy storage. Lots of it.

Until the Next New Thing in file systems rolls out of Cupertino, Redmond or, maybe, Redwood City, consumers will stuck with too many BSODs, missing and corrupted files and app crashes. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait too many more years.

Comments welcome, of course. Update:There’s now a Google Code page for MacZFS.

Robin HarrisRobin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.


Email Robin Harris

Subscribe to Storage Bits via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 45 Talkback(s)
Lol
Touche on that one... (Read the rest)
Posted by: mlbslugger Posted on: 11/16/09 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
fortunately  ljenux-23043766007667558234416105604265 | 10/26/09
NTFS  jdbukis@... | 10/26/09
Please, NTFS isn't even close.  R HarrisZDNet Moderator | 10/26/09
NTFS is impressive, but indeed too old  Mitch 74 | 10/26/09
Nonsense!  gregoryk@... | 10/26/09
Data integrity IS a function of a file system  R HarrisZDNet Moderator | 10/26/09
Data integrity starts at the lowest level  zackers | 10/29/09
Yes, just like a 1932 Ford has a lot of common features with a 2009 Ferrari  914four | 10/26/09
knee-jerk Redmond fanbuism  Wintel BSOD | 10/26/09
Re: fortunately  GAGendel | 10/26/09
Heh  jeremychappell | 10/27/09
How about EXT4 and BTRFS?  pjotr123 | 10/26/09
Both have interesting properties  R HarrisZDNet Moderator | 10/26/09
The coming period will be interesting  pjotr123 | 10/27/09
Yes, bring on Ubuntu 9.10  root12 | 10/27/09
Ditto for Mandriva 2010 ...  George Mitchell | 10/27/09
Ext4 is a stable production file system at this point ...  George Mitchell | 10/27/09
Apple picks NetApp WAFL over Sun ZFS  Storage101 | 10/26/09
Means nothing...  Eriamjh | 10/26/09
Hardly  R HarrisZDNet Moderator | 10/26/09
My guess is...  914four | 10/26/09
Rage  johnfenjackson@... | 10/26/09
So, let's see. Your source uses the word "may"  frgough | 10/26/09
While I disagree with almost every article he writes  wolf_z | 10/26/09
Probably no chance of this ....  Mythos7 | 10/26/09
Agreed ...  George Mitchell | 10/28/09
BFS. [nt]  olePigeon | 10/26/09
Apple could have just licensed the patents from NetApp directly  Johnny Vegas | 10/26/09
It'd be cheaper to write their own FS than license one from NetApp. [nt]  olePigeon | 10/26/09
Cheaper how?  zackers | 10/29/09
RE: Mac ZFS is dead: RIP.  Timpraetor | 10/26/09
Have a look at Btrfs  Mitch 74 | 10/26/09
Re: Have a look at Btrfs  GAGendel | 10/26/09
btrfs is planned replacement for ext4 ...  George Mitchell | 10/27/09
My understanding is that the concepts behind ZFS...  914four | 10/26/09
It's not Netapp's responsibility  zackers | 10/29/09
Guess the next news report on ZFS will be from Oracle ...  George Mitchell | 10/26/09
So it's everyone's fault but Apple  tonymcs@... | 10/26/09
Well if you have any facts to refute the story above...  Wintel BSOD | 10/26/09
Lets hear the facts Tony........  James Quinn | 10/26/09
Pink, anyone? happy  wolf_z | 10/29/09
Lol  mlbslugger | 11/16/09
RE: Mac ZFS is dead: RIP.  GAGendel | 10/26/09
What about power efficiency?  root12 | 10/27/09
Solaris rumours  The Management consultant | 10/27/09

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Click Here
advertisement

Recent Entries

advertisement

Archives

Favorite Links

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads