The blog post explores the history of Apple's rumored adoption of ZFS, the advanced file system. While Apple engineers internally prototyped and tested ZFS integration, ultimately licensing and legal complexities, combined with performance concerns specific to Apple's hardware (particularly flash storage) and the desire for full control over the file system's development, prevented its official adoption. Though ZFS offered appealing features, Apple chose to focus on its own in-house solutions, culminating in APFS. The post debunks claims of a fully functioning "ready to ship" ZFS implementation within OS X 10.5, clarifying it was experimental and never intended for release.
This spreadsheet documents a personal file system designed to mitigate data loss at home. It outlines a tiered backup strategy using various methods and media, including cloud storage (Google Drive, Backblaze), local network drives (NAS), and external hard drives. The system emphasizes redundancy by storing multiple copies of important data in different locations, and incorporates a structured approach to file organization and a regular backup schedule. The author categorizes their data by importance and sensitivity, employing different strategies for each category, reflecting a focus on preserving critical data in the event of various failure scenarios, from accidental deletion to hardware malfunction or even house fire.
Several commenters on Hacker News expressed skepticism about the practicality and necessity of the "Home Loss File System" presented in the linked Google Doc. Some questioned the complexity introduced by the system, suggesting simpler solutions like cloud backups or RAID would be more effective and less prone to user error. Others pointed out potential vulnerabilities related to security and data integrity, especially concerning the proposed encryption method and the reliance on physical media exchange. A few commenters questioned the overall value proposition, arguing that the risk of complete home loss, while real, might be better mitigated through insurance rather than a complex custom file system. The discussion also touched on potential improvements to the system, such as using existing decentralized storage solutions and more robust encryption algorithms.
Summary of Comments ( 63 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43810566
HN commenters discuss Apple's exploration and ultimate rejection of ZFS. Some highlight the licensing incompatibility as the primary roadblock, with ZFS's CDDL clashing with Apple's restrictive approach. Others speculate about Apple's internal politics and the potential "not invented here" syndrome influencing the decision. A few express disappointment, believing ZFS would have significantly benefited macOS, while some counter that APFS, Apple's eventual solution, adequately addresses their needs. The potential performance implications of ZFS on Apple hardware are also debated, with some arguing that Apple's hardware is uniquely suited to ZFS's strengths. Finally, the technical challenges of integrating ZFS, especially regarding snapshots and Time Machine, are mentioned as potential reasons for Apple's decision.
The Hacker News post discussing the article "ZFS: Apple's New Filesystem that wasn't" contains a robust discussion with several compelling comments.
Several commenters discuss the licensing incompatibility between ZFS's CDDL and Apple's macOS/iOS ecosystem. One commenter succinctly explains that while Apple could have theoretically re-licensed their OS, the effort and potential instability would have outweighed the benefits. They suggest the legal complications were likely insurmountable. Another clarifies the nuanced differences between "GPL infectiousness" (which ZFS/CDDL doesn't have) and the practical impossibility of integrating CDDL code into a proprietary derivative work like macOS. This incompatibility issue is the central theme of many comments.
Another thread dives into the technical aspects of ZFS and why it might have been appealing to Apple. One commenter praises ZFS's snapshotting and checksumming capabilities, highlighting the potential for a more robust and reliable file system for macOS. However, another points out the performance overhead ZFS could introduce, particularly with Apple's focus on flash storage at the time. The discussion explores the trade-offs between features like data integrity and raw speed, suggesting Apple likely prioritized the latter for their target hardware and use cases.
Several commenters reminisce about the anticipation surrounding the rumored integration of ZFS into macOS and the subsequent disappointment. One shares personal anecdotes about testing early ZFS implementations on OS X, hinting at the promise that ultimately went unfulfilled.
The performance characteristics of ZFS are debated, with some arguing its RAM requirements would have been prohibitive for mainstream adoption on Apple hardware at the time. Counterarguments suggest that ZFS's design could have benefited from the increasing RAM capacities in later Apple machines.
Finally, some comments touch upon the political and business dynamics between Apple and Sun Microsystems (later Oracle), speculating about the potential role these relationships played in the decision. While mostly conjecture, these comments add another layer to the discussion surrounding the failed integration.
In summary, the comments section provides a multifaceted perspective on the ZFS and Apple situation, covering the legal, technical, and historical aspects of the unfulfilled integration. The discussion highlights the complexities of software licensing, the trade-offs in filesystem design, and the realities of business decisions within the tech industry.