en.wikipedia.org — Well what ever it is it seams very important to Apple... ..."Populating 128-bit file systems would exceed the quantum limits of earth-based storage. You couldn't fill a 128-bit storage pool without boiling the oceans."...
Dec 17, 2006 View in Crawl 4
mgorbachDec 17, 2006
Maybe they never even intended to support time machine on HFS+ and that implementation was only a test?It could be that the new default configuration will be to create a /boot partition and a ZFS main one. Perhaps new apple systems will come configured this way my default.I wouldn't be surprised if Time Machine worked much better with ZFS than on HFS+.Also ... it would be so great if they used XATTRs to remove the need for files like .DS_Store!
hackwrenchDec 17, 2006
"File systems should not be databases."Why not? And for that matter, if conserving space wasn't a concern why wouldn't you want revesion tracking?
jamesdwiDec 17, 2006
Here is an blog entry on why ZFS is important for the home user. <a class="user" href="http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-zfs-for-home.html">http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-zfs-for-home.html</a>
sammyjrDec 18, 2006
I think it is a boot loader problem. ZFS is too big of a system - think of it as Linux LVM + Software RAID 5/6 + ext3 all rolled into one.
nitenDec 18, 2006
@HappyScrappy: Yes, it _is_ in 10.5. Disk Utility in the latest developer build has ZFS support. Google it.
teabaggerDec 18, 2006
128 pffft, whats this 128 pieces256 pounds baby, pounds....Obscure reference to The Jerky Boys(now DIGG me down you f**ks)
nothingprettyDec 19, 2006
did anybody say time machine yet? because someone should have said time machine.time machine.
thepottsdomeDec 20, 2006
It turned into a newt........ but, i got better.
supervapioApr 22, 2007
Well... Things like this happen everywhere.
firstmargaretApr 24, 2007
Dugg that. Are you people blind to vote for THIS?