Re:Apple can do better than ZFS
by Avshalom on Sunday October 25, 2009 @06:58AM
(#901497)
"It turned out his research team had about the same number of people working on their FS as Apple had working on HFS, HFS+, UFS, NFS, WebDAV, FAT, and NTFS combined. I think people don't appreciate how productive Apple is on a per-engineer basis."
The thing is that's not quite right. The comparison there is between the crew maintaining file system support versus the crew implementing a new fs from scratch. The Author pays lip service in saying it normally takes more than one OS release to implement a FS, but still underestimates the effort it takes to make a completely new production ready FS.
Yes ZFS is not the be all end all. BtrFS, distributed FS's like Hammer and Venti, as well as the occasional complaint about ZFS are exhibits A-? for that, but that doesn't mean Apple can create an FS of the same sophistication in the 18? months that they release in.
The thing is that's not quite right. The comparison there is between the crew maintaining file system support versus the crew implementing a new fs from scratch. The Author pays lip service in saying it normally takes more than one OS release to implement a FS, but still underestimates the effort it takes to make a completely new production ready FS.
Yes ZFS is not the be all end all. BtrFS, distributed FS's like Hammer and Venti, as well as the occasional complaint about ZFS are exhibits A-? for that, but that doesn't mean Apple can create an FS of the same sophistication in the 18? months that they release in.