Lack of ZFS File System Support in Snow Leopard Due to Licensing Issues?
In June, we noted that Sun's ZFS file system, previously mentioned by Apple as being included in Mac OS X Server Snow Leopard, had been removed from Apple's documentation for the release. The change was ultimately reflected in the released version of Snow Leopard, which does in fact lack support for ZFS.
MacRumors had heard that the removal of support for ZFS, which had even made appearances in Leopard, from Snow Leopard was due to licensing issues, and a recent posting from data storage expert Robin Harris suggests that this may indeed be the case.
MacRumors had heard that the removal of support for ZFS, which had even made appearances in Leopard, from Snow Leopard was due to licensing issues, and a recent posting from data storage expert Robin Harris suggests that this may indeed be the case.
But then a couple of sources came in with a new angle: that Sun's licensing demands killed the deal. Sun prefers the CDDL [Common Development and Distribution License] and may have asked for some extra protections, including patent indemnification, that caused Apple to reconsider the business risk of ZFS.
While Sun could elect to release ZFS under a GNU General Public License (GPL) that would enable inclusion of support for it in other settings, the company has yet to do so. Harris notes, however, that Oracle's pending acquisition of Sun could open the door to reconsideration of ZFS licensing issues.Now that Oracle is acquiring Sun things look brighter. Oracle is already bankrolling a GPL'd ZFS clone - btrfs - that will take years to reach the level of maturity that ZFS now enjoys. Once they own ZFS why wouldn't they GPL it and call it good?
In Harris' view, Sun's apparent reluctance to license ZFS represents a significant missed opportunity for the company and the industry, one which Harris hopes can be rectified in the near future.The ZFS team has produced a game-changing file system/volume manager. The chance to get it into the hands of 10s of millions of Mac users - and to influence Redmond's file system strategy - seem to this outsider an opportunity of a lifetime.
If the ZFS engineering team opposed this - and I'd love to hear their take - I encourage them to reconsider. Marketers often ask the question "would you prefer 100% of nothing or 40% of something huge?"
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
36 months ago
I wonder if there would be any other issues licensing Sun technology.
Would love to see Zones (based on FreeBSD Jails) ported over if they can't just port Jails.
Solaris Zones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_Containers
FreeBSD Jail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_jail
The Lustre Clustered File System combined with ZFS looks good too: http://www.sun.com/software/products/lustre/
Would love to see Zones (based on FreeBSD Jails) ported over if they can't just port Jails.
Solaris Zones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_Containers
FreeBSD Jail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_jail
The Lustre Clustered File System combined with ZFS looks good too: http://www.sun.com/software/products/lustre/
36 months ago
I would kill someone, in front of their own mama, for ZFS.
(All apologies to ATHF) :D
(All apologies to ATHF) :D
36 months ago
Sun has had an insteresting run with open sourcing their stuff to the few various licences they are using. The issue they seem to face the most is how to make that open source technology profitable for them. I am not sure if the reluctance to GPL ZFS might have been linked to this issue (since I don't know a ton about CDDL, i can't say if it would make a difference), but I am sure Sun had their reason.
Remember when jonathan schwartz jumped the gun at a press conference and said ZFS would be included in OSX? before Steve got the chance to say it? 20$ says Jobs didn't include it out of spite.
jonathan schwartz: "we're going ot be in apple's OSX!"
Jobs: "...you were. reveal a feature and take away my chance to anounce it will you? see how you like them apples, removed"
jonathan schwartz: (silence)
Jobs: "I have the power!!!1"
Remember when jonathan schwartz jumped the gun at a press conference and said ZFS would be included in OSX? before Steve got the chance to say it? 20$ says Jobs didn't include it out of spite.
jonathan schwartz: "we're going ot be in apple's OSX!"
Jobs: "...you were. reveal a feature and take away my chance to anounce it will you? see how you like them apples, removed"
jonathan schwartz: (silence)
Jobs: "I have the power!!!1"
36 months ago
I don't think it's a lost opportunity. ZFS is an excellent file system and a big selling point for Solaris. Why spend all that money developing it and then just give it away to Apple and others? If I was them I'd make it a feature of Solaris and don't give it to anyone (and I'm a Mac user).
36 months ago
Bull Crap. There is nothing in the CDDL license that would make Apple think twice about including ZFS in OSX. They shipped it once and continue to ship NTFS which is GPLed and GPL is more restrictive to organizations than CDDL is. And ZFS is even in FreeBSD - so licensing incompatibilities if any would be very minor and definitely not show stoppers.
It is however much more likely that it was dropped purely due to technical issues. ZFS is very intrusive and demanding on the OS infrastructure to be extremely scalable and often some assumptions deep within the OS are challenged by revolutionary stuff like ZFS.
If you look at the FreeBSD ZFS Wiki it is evident that there are a lot of hurdles. Going a little further and reaching over to OpenSolaris forums - it has not been a particularly smooth sailing for Solaris users either. That is very uncommon of Sun and clearly demonstrates the complexities involved.
"Porting" is one thing but "supporting" something like ZFS is not an easy task and perhaps the wise people at Apple realized that ZFS is not your grandma's accounting program and dropped it for now. Expect it to come back once Apple sorts out the issues.
It is however much more likely that it was dropped purely due to technical issues. ZFS is very intrusive and demanding on the OS infrastructure to be extremely scalable and often some assumptions deep within the OS are challenged by revolutionary stuff like ZFS.
If you look at the FreeBSD ZFS Wiki it is evident that there are a lot of hurdles. Going a little further and reaching over to OpenSolaris forums - it has not been a particularly smooth sailing for Solaris users either. That is very uncommon of Sun and clearly demonstrates the complexities involved.
"Porting" is one thing but "supporting" something like ZFS is not an easy task and perhaps the wise people at Apple realized that ZFS is not your grandma's accounting program and dropped it for now. Expect it to come back once Apple sorts out the issues.
36 months ago
I know that everyone is just smitten with SL but it really pisses me off that apple doesn't speak up about why something like ZFS isn't there. they touted it. it reminds me of the star wars-like backdrop for ichat... That magically never came to fruition either. No wonder their media events are so amazing, they announce features that never arrive. instead of manning up and explaining why, they've got forum users here who will surely offer up excuses for them (see above and below). it just would be nice if they spoke up on their own before media frenzies encourage them to.
36 months ago
Ok, so I thought I was pretty Mac savvy, but apparently I don’t speak acronym well enough. What does this mean for the end user like me?
36 months ago
Here is an excellent article that delves into how BTRFS and ZFS differ.
http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/
I don't think it's fair to call BTRFS an attempt to 'clone' of ZFS...in some respects it appears to be a worthwhile improvement.
http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/
I don't think it's fair to call BTRFS an attempt to 'clone' of ZFS...in some respects it appears to be a worthwhile improvement.
36 months ago
ZFS or WinFS....which vaporware will be unceremoniously murdered first?:rolleyes:
[ Read All Comments ]
Our sister-site TouchArcade notes that Chillingo's excellent physics puzzler Feed Me Oil is free today for both the iPhone and iPad. It's normally $0.99 for iPhone and $1.99 for iPad....
Several years ago, Comcast began instituting bandwidth caps of 250GB per month on its residential customers. In 2008, this was plenty for most customers, but with the advent of streaming video...
Reuters reports that China Mobile Chairman Xi Guohua has once again publicly stated that the world's largest mobile phone carrier is engaged in talks with Apple about offering the iPhone to its...
Apple has filed a motion to dismiss in a case filed by customers over alleged misleading advertising depicting the Siri technology in the iPhone 4S. The lawsuit, filed in March, alleges that...
The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ASCI) today released its latest rankings of customer satisfaction in the United States for mobile phones and a number of products and services, with the new...
