It looks like a standard sheet (hence sightly transparent) that you see in disk utility when you go to create a disk image. Go try it again in Tiger.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ZFS in Latest Leopard Builds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem with this is that NTFS is closed source. And they'd have to reverse engineer it or licensce it.
Yep... NTFS read AND WRITE would sure be useful. But like you say, Microsoft has done little to allow such things on other platforms. They have made available basic licensing so that other platforms can READ NTFS volumes, but that's about it.
Basically, OS X has hundreds of thousands of files that only have a few hundred bytes of info or less in them, very tiny. The smnallest allocation block for HFS+ is 4k, correct me if I'm wrong. Now, instead of that 152Byte file taking up 30x the space that it needs to, it may only take up 200Bytes. Make sense, the problem was woprse with old Mac file systems, system 7 had a minimum allocation block of 32k, so your 15 byte text doc saying, "hello there bob" took up 2000x the space that the file actually contained. The real interesting thing is, that the old mac OS used to tell us how much space the file took up on the drive, i.e. the Get Info window would never show a file less than 32k, but OS X tells us only how large the data contained in the file is, not how large the block of data holding the file on the hard drive is.
Yes it does. U just made an RTF with the text "bla" in it. Get Info tells me:
4KB on disc (341 bytes).
ZFS is quite feasible for an OS as ahead of it's time as (I believe) leopard will be. It is a very capable file system for the future, and have no problem accepting as the future file-system for Mac OS.
I was typing fast and misspoke when what I meant to say was only that Old Mac OS would ONLY show the disk size.
No, that's still incorrect. I'm not in front of my Quadra right now, but I remember the Get Info window having a size, and a "size on disk".
The ZFS Boot project hasn't been updated since the 30th of August. You'll also notice that it's a "hidden" project. The last time it was updated was build 46; the current build is 54 - soon to be 55. Not to mention you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get build 46 to actually boot off of ZFS. It appears to me that the project has been put on the back burner.
On top of that, there's not much similarity between the boot process on Solaris and the boot process on OS X. I think Apple would have to put some work into ZFS for OS X to be able to boot off of it. However, another approach is to have a small HFS+ boot partition, but install the actual OS in a separate ZFS partition.
Just my 2 cents.
That would be interesting, but isn't the flash portion of these HDDs meant to be used as an additional cache and not as storage space? If that's true I don't see how your idea could be implemented.
I was going nuts while reading this thread on a non-networked PDA and not having a chance to respond until now, especially about this one particular issue:
Unless I missed it what others posts about this seem to be overlooking is that it's the media/storage format, not the device type, that makes the most difference whether or not it's a candidate for being added to a ZFS storage pool.
If you attach a camera, iPod, etc. that's already formatted with FAT32, HFS+, or any other filesystem than ZFS there's no reason for the system to consider it for a ZFS pool(!). And it may trigger an app to open or some other behavior depending on the device and/or format, which I remember being mentioned in this thread but I'm too lazy to find the post(s).
If you attach a device with uninitialized/unformatted media the system might prompt for how to handle it (e.g. give Time Machine permission to use it) or do something automatically.
That simple explanation makes the most sense to me though it's certainly possible I've overlooked something (obvious or not). I really don't see how the presence of ZFS on OS X would radically change how the system currently handles multiple filesystems and storage formats. If anyone knows better please enlighten me/us.
That's the closest anyone's come to what I've been waiting to say
That the iPod may be "on the Mac end" is probably irrelevant.
Unless I missed it what others posts about this seem to be overlooking is that it's the media/storage format, not the device type, that makes the most difference whether or not it's a candidate for being added to a ZFS storage pool.
If you attach a camera, iPod, etc. that's already formatted with FAT32, HFS+, or any other filesystem than ZFS there's no reason for the system to consider it for a ZFS pool(!). And it may trigger an app to open or some other behavior depending on the device and/or format, which I remember being mentioned in this thread but I'm too lazy to find the post(s).
If you attach a device with uninitialized/unformatted media the system might prompt for how to handle it (e.g. give Time Machine permission to use it) or do something automatically.
That simple explanation makes the most sense to me though it's certainly possible I've overlooked something (obvious or not). I really don't see how the presence of ZFS on OS X would radically change how the system currently handles multiple filesystems and storage formats. If anyone knows better please enlighten me/us.
I love that ZFS is opensource. How great would it be if someone were to write rock-solid ZFS support for Windows XP and Vista. Then we could have shared volumes between OS X and Windows (Boot Camp or virtualization) that supported multimedia files (>4GB) w/o hacky software that doesn't work at times.
