On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, David Magda wrote: >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033125.html >> >> Perhaps Apple can come to an agreement with Oracle when they couldn't with >> Sun. > > This seems very unlikely since the future needs of Apple show little > requirement for zfs. Apple only offers one computer model which provides > ECC and a disk drive configuration which is marginally useful for zfs. This > computer model has a very limited user-base which is primarily people in the > video and desktop imaging/publishing world. Apple already exited the server > market, for which they only ever offered single limited-use model (Xserve).
As an FS for their TimeMachine NAS boxes (Time Capsule, I think), though, ZFS would be a good fit. Similar to how the Time Slider works in Sun/Oracle's version of Nautilus/GNOME2. Especially if they expand the boxes to use 4 drives (2x mirror), and had the pool pre-configured. As a desktop/laptop FS, though, ZFS (in its current incarnation) is overkill and unwieldy. Especially since most of these machines only have room for a single HD. > There would likely be a market if someone was to sell pre-packaged zfs for > Apple OS-X at a much higher price than the operating system itself. > > Bob > -- > Bob Friesenhahn > bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
