Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Apple Businesses

Mac OS X to Get Journaling FS 691

overunderunderdone writes "According to eWeek, Apple Computer is planning to introduce a new journaling file system code-named 'Elvis' with the 10.2.2 release. Supposedly it will run on top of HFS+ and will be turned off by default. Though it will cost you 10% to 15% performance penalty the article says it is more extensive than NTFS and is on par with BeOS's 64-bit journaling file system. Not surprising since it is being developed by the same person - Dominic Giampaolo." I've been super impressed by OS X having used it as my primary laptop for the last couple weeks. It really is a great unix box- and this is one of the important missing puzzle pieces.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac OS X to Get Journaling FS

Comments Filter:
  • by Faggot ( 614416 ) <choads AT gay DOT com> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:11PM (#4455458) Homepage
    ...when you pry HFS+ from my cold, dead hands.

    No, wait. Give me that.
  • by aburnsio.com ( 213397 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:13PM (#4455481)
    Is this an entirely new journaling system or one based on an existing (BeOS) journaling system? Won't there be performance and stability impacts from basing it on HFS+ instead of a more modern framework? Is is possible to compile one of the existing *BSD journaling systems on OSX/Darwin (I haven't heard of anyone with success in this matter)?
    • by StressedCoder ( 69160 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:27PM (#4455614)

      This seems like an entirely new system, because the BSD type systems do not have journaling, and there is no such system on the forseable horizon.

      FreeBSD provides something called softupdates, which do much to alievate the need for a journaling system. And it does this without the performance hit. When FreeBSD 5.0 comes out it will do something called snapshoting, which will bring even more stability (and background fsck) without much of a performance hit. NetBSD provides (I think) a different implementation of softupdates. OpenBSD might too, I don't know.

      Which makes me very disappointed that apple chose this route. Softupdates+Snapshots solves the problem without the performance hit. BSD doesn't need no stinking journaling.

    • Difficult to say that anything is totally new, I suspect this is 'new' but it will no doubt be influenced by previous work on BeOS, other filesystems the engineer has worked on, and other filesystems in general.
      I suspect the advantage of having it based on HFS+ is at least partly to do with compatibility. At the moment you can install OS X on a UFS partition, but some apps won't play nice. Hopefully 'Elvis' will get around this problem and give users more options.
  • a bit offtopic, but (Score:5, Interesting)

    by comp.sci ( 557773 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:14PM (#4455484)
    what other important features has OSX that Linux has not. I am thinking about getting a Laptop with OSX so I was wondering how OXS compares to Linux.
    • by jbarket ( 530468 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:16PM (#4455506)
      I made the switch over last December. Love it. I was really more of a FreeBSD user, but you get the idea. It's wonderful to be able to have an attractive GUI with all too many bells and whistles to work with, but still be able to throw up a terminal window with bash and work with the real heart of things if you feel the need. Plus the ability to run XFree86 rootless on top of the GUI is nice.
    • by papasui ( 567265 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:20PM (#4455543) Homepage
      A beautiful interface with great professional products available (photoshop, office, etc.) while keeping the ability to run nix software.
    • by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:54PM (#4455851) Journal
      Don't know what moron modded you flamebait but...

      On top of being able to run *most* of the software that Linux will run, OS X also gives you Photoshop, M$ Office and other commercial apps, a bunch of non commercial apps (www.macosxapps.com, most of the old classic apps and Virtual PC which will get just about any Windows app other than games working on the mac.

      If there is some linux program that you just can't live without that wont run under OS X, you also have the option to install Linux on your laptop as well.
      • by A_Non_Moose ( 413034 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @05:56PM (#4456923) Homepage Journal
        (/Off topic whining)
        What was it with the flamebait mods today? I got one for *my* opinion + experience...{shrug}
        (/off topic whine off)

        On topic:
        Excellent to get a JFS on OSX, finally. I let out a "whoo-hooo", but what do you want from a geek. Eh?

        The only thing no one has considered/mentioned is that to gain that speed hit back, you'd probably put in a faster scsi drive, right?

        Some people might recall that Adaptec has/is/was dropping mac support (boo!) and while I have an ATTO card in my Mac attached to an 18G Cheeta, well, OS9 does quite well on it...OSX does a less than thrilling job {speedwise}.
        So far everything seems to point to OSX or its SCSI/ATTO drivers. (bummer)

        Insult to injury is:
        {oversimplification warning}
        From a storagereview.com roundup says, in effect:
        IDE ='s write performance (workstation/home use}
        SCSI ='s Read performance (server/raid)
        Makes sense when you think about it, so it might be a good idea to get an IDE raid card and do a raid 1+0 to minimize or cancel out the speed hit and keep some integrity.

        With so many "Good Things (TM)" coming to OSX, the computing world is going to get very interesting, I think.

        (/me crosses fingers for Power4 Macs...now THAT would be a PowerMac!)
    • by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:28PM (#4456167)
      what other important features has OSX that Linux has not.

      huh? Linux has quite a few journaling filing systems, in particular it has the rather fine ReiserFS. In the next kernel series, RFS 4 will be out, which seriously kicks ass from what I've been seeing. In particular it has very high performance, esp for small files. XFS has attributes too.

      I am thinking about getting a Laptop with OSX so I was wondering how OXS compares to Linux.

      A quick comparison:

      • OS X easy to use. Linux, not there yet, check back in a few years
      • OS X single vendor, Linux multivendor
      • OS X good hardware integration, but not much range in terms of machines you can buy, Linux will run on anything, not so good hardware integration.
      • OS X expensive, Linux cheap
      • OS X brand name software, usually high quality, most of the important stuff made by Microsoft, most software relatively expensive, Linux no branding at all, no MS software, practically all software is free speech/beer.

      But the most important of all, OS X is proprietary and has all the lockin nastyness you'd associate with Windows, Linux is free. Nuff said.

      • by jtdubs ( 61885 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @03:59AM (#4460061)
        Yeah, damn that "lockin nastyness."

        Stupid OS X.

        Basing there graphics system off such properietary API as *gasp* OpenGL. And having native support for running that un-portable proprietary Java language, whatever the hell that is.

        And using that damned open-source Mach microkernel.

        And that stupid open-sourced Darwin unix core.

        And that acursed POSIX API (still a work in progress).

        And CUPS.

        And OpenFirmware.

        How dare they rely on such proprietary things as firewire and usb for peripherals. And 802.11b for networking. And optional LDAP authentication. And how dare they invent new, cool, peer-to-peer automatic network configuration protocols (Rendevouz) and then open up the spec and source.

        They are practically the devil.

        And I love how on every point OS X wins. You agreed that it was easier to use, had better hardware integration, and better software. Plus, I think most of us agree that it's really cool tech and is prettier.

        And then you say "Linux is free. Nuff said." as if this clinches it and Linux has won despite losing in every category other than price.

        So, hard to use, poorly-integrated OSs with bad software-support beat easy to use, well integrated OSs with good software-support as long as they are free?

        Damn that apple and their embracing of open standards.

        Justin Dubs
  • 10-15% (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SlamMan ( 221834 ) <squigitNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:16PM (#4455505)
    Ok, so being I'm not the highest on there terminology totem pole, can somebody expain to me why journaling matters to me, and why its worth 10-15% of my system resources?
    • Re:10-15% (Score:5, Informative)

      by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:19PM (#4455536) Homepage
      Ok, so being I'm not the highest on there terminology totem pole, can somebody expain to me why journaling matters to me, and why its worth 10-15% of my system resources?

      So you can have fun yanking out the power plug of your computer while its doing a write operation without the unpleasant experience on reboot. Most people (as in AOL Grandmas) don't need it but for servers, its a must. This will help beef up Mac OS X Server against Linux.

      • Re:10-15% (Score:5, Funny)

        by marhar ( 66825 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:57PM (#4456426) Homepage
        Most people (as in AOL Grandmas)

        I think this will also benefit the AOL Grandma crowd. Can you imagine their reaction upon booting up with a dirty partition and having to go into single-user mode and repair a filesystem?

      • Re:10-15% (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @05:09PM (#4456517)
        I disagree. "AOL Grandmas" are exactly the sort of idiots most likely to turn off their machine by pulling the plug or turning off the surge protector the machine is on. Not to mention, they're also the people most likely to destabilize their system into crashing with bad software in the first place.

        I think it should be turned on by default with advanced users, such as video editing pros, being the ones to turn it off.
      • by dmoen ( 88623 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @08:44PM (#4458047) Homepage
        Most people (as in AOL Grandmas) don't need it

        I know of one AOL Grandma who has only one troubleshooting strategy: she power cycles her iMac whenever she has a computer problem.

        Doug Moen

    • Re:10-15% (Score:5, Informative)

      by aburnsio.com ( 213397 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:22PM (#4455575)
      Journaling your filesystem allows you to maintain integrity through a system crash or power outage. This doesn't mean you'll have all the data in your files uncorrupted (a point often missed by many), but rather that your filesystem won't become corrupted (you won't lose your filesystem because of a crash). Modern filesystems like the more recent Linux etxfs and XFS and Windows NTFS support journaling. It's an essential part of keeping your computer crash-resistant.

      There is a cost, however. Journaling filesystems are slower than non-journaling because all file metadata update operations have to be written to a transaction log. This makes journaling a poor choice for some high-volume filesystems in scientific computing or other arenas where performance is uttermost (games). In most cases, however, the performance penalty is worth the added integrity.

      Note that journaling your filesystem only keeps the metadata intact, not the file data itself. You can still loose data, such as the contents of a document you were editing but had not saved. For full transactional integrity you need the cost and overhead of a transactional database (SQLServer, Postgres, DB2, Oracle, etc.).
      • Re:10-15% (Score:5, Informative)

        by mickwd ( 196449 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:41PM (#4455750)
        "Note that journaling your filesystem only keeps the metadata intact, not the file data itself".

        That depends on which journaling filesystem you use, and, sometimes, which mode you use it in.

        For example, the Linux ext3 file system supports three different journaling modes: "journal", "ordered" and "writeback".

        From the "mount" man page:

        journal All data is committed into the journal prior to being
        written into the main file system.

        ordered This is the default mode. All data is forced directly
        out to the main file system prior to its metadata being
        committed to the journal.

        writeback Data ordering is not preserved - data may be written into
        the main file system after its metadata has been commit-
        ted to the journal. This is rumoured to be the highest-
        throughput option. It guarantees internal file system
        integrity, however it can allow old data to appear in
        files after a crash and journal recovery.

        "You can still loose data, such as the contents of a document you were editing but had not saved".

        Well unless you've got some special sort of memory, you're going to lose everything you (or the application) haven't saved, whatever type of file system you use.
      • Re:10-15% (Score:5, Informative)

        by ahknight ( 128958 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:47PM (#4455791)
        There is no penalty for games. Games only read. The performance hit is for mass file creation and renaming and so on.
      • Re:10-15% (Score:5, Informative)

        by Doktor Memory ( 237313 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:47PM (#4455795) Journal
        Journaling filesystems are slower than non-journaling because all file metadata update operations have to be written to a transaction log.
        That isn't necessarily true. At least, not always. In a RAID environment, filesystem logging can actually result in a net performance increase, because queuing up your writes in cache ram while waiting for the journal to commit increases the likelihood that the physical write operation will get spread sequentially over all of the drive heads. See Adrian Cockroft's book [amazon.com] for more details.
    • Re:10-15% (Score:5, Informative)

      by rgmoore ( 133276 ) <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:24PM (#4455587) Homepage

      Journaling means that if your system isn't shut down cleanly, it won't take forever to fsck your disk the next time you start up. The journal will contain all the information the system needs to get the system into a consistent state after an unclean shutdown. In addition, if the system journals all data instead of just metadata (as most journaling systems seem to do) it will prevent data loss, too.

      Also bear in mind that it won't cost you 10-15% of your system resources; it will slow down disk operations by 10-15%, which is a much smaller penalty. If you aren't doing really disk intensive stuff, you probably won't even notice the slowdown. If you are doing lots of disk intensive activities, you'll probably like the fact that you're less likely to be hosed if your system crashes in the middle of one.

    • Re:10-15% (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheMatt ( 541854 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:28PM (#4455627) Homepage Journal
      If you have ever had a Linux system running a non-journaling filesystem, you'd know. I had a box using ext2, a non-journaling fs, go down in a power failure. This baby had about 100 GB of space in ext2. It took at least an hour to get the system up because if a box crashes without journaling, it must check the drives for consistency.

      In comparison, that same box using ext3, a journaling filesystem, takes a second or two to recover since it is not dependant on the size of the drives, but the (small) size of the journal (except if your drive hardware fails).

      Also, journaling helps with data integrity in cases of failure as well, so you don't get files filled with garbage at the end.

      If they are using anything close to BeOS's filesystem, use it. That was by far the best filesystem I have ever seen. Beautiful.
    • Re:10-15% (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rusty0101 ( 565565 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:38PM (#4455722) Homepage Journal
      As for why Journaling matters, I recomend going to Google and asking it for the tutorial on ext3. The tutorial has links to even more depth on the issue. As a quick overview, when you edit files in most applications, the process of saving involves two steps, write data to disk, update whatever form of table is in use on the disk with what updates have been made. For example, a file now uses sectors 5200,5201, and 5209 rather than just 5200 and 5201 as it was originally written.

      If the power goes out between when the data was written, and when the tables were updated, the data is effectively lost, as the system will only know about the fact that data was written to 5200 and 5201.

      Journaling has several implementations, however one of the most common is to log what data is being written to the hard disk, then when all the tables are updated, flushing that information out of the journal.

      If the power fails, the system opens the journal file, and starts the process of writing the data in the journal file to the hard disk again.

      Why might this be worth a 10-15%? This will be different for different users, but a fairly simple (if contrived) example is if you are running a commercial web site. If I decide to purchase 1000 units of roduct XXZ from your web site, without knowing that a thunder storm is moving through your community, I place my order, get a confirmation number back, and think all is well. Unbeknownst to me, your web server dies after generating the confirmation, while writing the record to the hard disk.

      If my purchase is important to your business, say for example the money has been handled as part of the confirmation, and I would not be happy about you not shipping the product I paid for, you might think it worth a 10-15% performance penalty to insure that my purchase gets recorded properly when your power comes back up.

      At the same time, if you spend your time on the computer reading slashdot, playing Everquest, and crunching DES keys, perhaps journaling isn't worth the 10-15% hit.

      I may be wrong here as well, but I believe the 10-15% hit being reported is for disk intensive transactions, not for processor performance.

      Then again, I could be wrong.

    • How it works... (Score:5, Informative)

      by emil ( 695 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:35PM (#4456225)

      Imagine that you have a library, and a librarian is filing away new books. When she is done filing them, she puts entries into the card catalog downstairs for the new books. The card catalog represents a filesystem's metadata.

      Now imagine that the librarian falls out of a 2nd story window into a dumpster and is carted away before she finishes filing the books and updating the catalog. You have no idea what books were filed; you have to perform an exhaustive search of the library to ensure that the card catalog is correct, which takes a long time. This was fsck before journaling.

      Servers with large amounts of disk space cannot afford extensive fsck times after a crash. It can take hours.

      Now imagine that the librarian keeps a small notepad of the books that she is filing, and when she meets her sticky end, the new librarian can read the notepad, check and verify the new entries, then update the card catalog to a consistent state. We assume that the notepad is updated before the book is filed, so if we have an incomplete notepad entry, the librarian died and the entry can be disregarded. The notepad corresponds to the journal in a journaling file system.

      It takes time to write a journal, so journaling filesystems will always be at least a little slower than non-journaling equivalents, design improvements aside.

      Most journaling filesystems will only guard the card catalog (metadata). Some, such as VxFS and ext3, can also be made to journal the books (data), but performance goes down because so much more goes through the log.

      Another feature to look for in journaling filesystems is dynamic inode creation. ext3 does not have this feature - you can only have so many card catalog entries, and when you exceed them, you can't add any more new books. XFS, for example, can create new inodes on the fly as long as you have disk space.

      For Sun people, it is always a surprise to find that Sun's UFS does journaling (you don't have to buy Veritas VxFS), but you have to turn it on with an option in /etc/vfstab.

  • by HogGeek ( 456673 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:16PM (#4455507)
    the more I really want a Mac. I've run VAXen, and UNIX based systems for about 15 years, and also use to run a small network of Macs, and I learned then to hate them...

    The OS was unforgiving with incompatable hardware, and there just was NO configuration.

    But now, I'm dying to try it again.

    Any one got a spare system sitting around that I could try for a week or two. :-)
  • by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:17PM (#4455514) Homepage
    ...to Switch! [apple.com] This was about the last major gripe I had with Mac OS X. We already have an encrypted file system. However, no matter how I have abused my Macs in the past, I have never had filesystem corruption with HFS+. I constantly forget to unmount my iPod and yank it off the firewire cable. Mac OS X grips about the possibility of filesystem corruption but so far, so good. Others mileage may vary and I wouldn't do it during a write.
    • by aburnsio.com ( 213397 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:27PM (#4455613)
      You get away with it because you aren't banging hard at the filesystem while yanking away at your cables. Try fulling loading your system with data copies back and forth to your iPod and an external hard drive, open your Mac box, and then on full disk load pull all cables (including internal hard drive connection). Try this a few times and you may have more luck. ;-)
    • by x136 ( 513282 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:29PM (#4455630) Homepage
      I have never had filesystem corruption with HFS+.
      You haven't been trying hard enough. :)

      Although I will say that I've only had it happen once and it was pretty much my fault (and it wasn't in OS X, either.). More than I can say for FAT16/FAT32.
      • by edremy ( 36408 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:39PM (#4455726) Journal
        Got a call from one of the help desk people yesterday: he was confused about a Disk First Aid message on a Mac here.

        Yep, you guessed it... B-tree was basically spaghetti: reformat and reinstall time. I've seen it happen a few times before: the most spectacular being a crash during a defrag. Basically, nothing pointed to the right file: all the icons were there, but the info in them was basically noise.

        • by LoudMusic ( 199347 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:13PM (#4456010)
          Wow dude, that kicks ass! The worst I've seen is the error where the file size is being reported incorrectly. A file showed up as some 37TB or something. Of course the OS had no idea what to do with the file, and the only way to get rid of it is to format/reinstall.

          One of the nice things about Macs (old school at least) is that I could just boot from a CD and copy everything on the HDD (minus the bad file) to the server, format the drive, and copy it all back. Good as new ... errr ... old.

          HFS and HFS+ have serious file corruption issues that most people don't ever see because they don't use their computer for more than web serfing and email. When you get into a business environment and really go at it full speed, the file system chokes. It's slow, resource heavy, and prone to file damage. It's a regular occurance on my 20+ PowerMacs to have to boot from a Norton CD and "Disk Doctor" the file system just to get them to boot from their hard drive.

          • by Pengo ( 28814 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:30PM (#4456178) Journal
            Hmm... I disagree.

            I use my tiBook as my unix dev server for our server platform. though, we deploy onto unix, I can do 99.9% of the operations on my tiBook and as I work 50% from my home office, it's a perfect fit.. I always have my dev server with me.

            I have managed thus far to achieve a few crashes, mainly due to a resource leak with file handles and also a strange bug in Java. I have had my software crash litterally thousands of times in development cycles. I have had to hard-reset because of a hard lock w/the quartz engine....

            Anyway, I -abuse- this laptop (which I am typing on right now). It's has been an absolute champ. I haven't had anything go corrupt, and never had an error i couldn't recover from.

            Note, that I did re-partition my drive and stuck /usr/local/ mounted with a 3 gig UFS partition, but not problems with that in the last 3 weeks.

            My G4 tower (466) has been a mysql and pgsql database server and a host of my personal webserver for almost 2 years now. It survived moving over-seas twice and my abusive MP3 harvesting tools to newsgroups *gasp, I know*.

            Anyway, to say that a 'real user' will experience problems is utter bullshit. I don't know what's going on with your stations but we have 5 people on the team using G4's (some laptop+tower) and we never have problems.
    • by dubiousmike ( 558126 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:41PM (#4455740) Homepage Journal
      People, people. I would think as Mac fans we wouldn't want to tout the Switch campaign. Do any of us here really think that it is meant to target any of us, or just the lowest common denominator that happens to have extra money to spend on a system?

      Apple commercial: "I wanted to do video editing and no one could help me to do it on a PC". What a fucking moron. If you can't use a search engine, what makes you think you could edit video? For God's sake, you can buy a PC with a firewire card and some cheap editing software and BAM! you can bring your video right in.

      I understand that OS X is great for us geeks, but pulease stop bringing up the commercial that HAS to be targeted at AOL users and other internet bottom feeders.

      Disclaimer: i DO like macs.

      • I understand that OS X is great for us geeks, but pulease stop bringing up the commercial that HAS to be targeted at AOL users and other internet bottom feeders.

        And Slashdotters are top of the food chain? :) Actually there are several sysadmins that are apart of the Switch campaign. Not all of them are teenaged girls [ellenfeiss.net] with their brains nuked out on Nyquil [apple.com].

        Disclaimer: i DO like macs.

        Sure you do. Sure you do. If you really liked Macs, you would never, ever diss the marketing department built by Steve Jobs. Admit it! You are just a paid consultant from the Microsoft Marketing department astroturfing Slashdot. [slashdot.org] So which stock photo do you use? :P

      • by SoupIsGoodFood_42 ( 521389 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:29PM (#4456174)
        Apple commercial: "I wanted to do video editing and no one could help me to do it on a PC". What a fucking moron. If you can't use a search engine, what makes you think you could edit video?

        Is it possable that they know this. But can't be fucked spending hours on the web looking for good advice and trying to decide who's right, downloading/buying different software to see which on is the best package, discovering that the new video editing card they bought conficts with their motherboard?
        This person is a fucking moron because they didn't want possability of having to go through this?

        BTW. Saying that someone who isn't good with the internet would also have no clue with video editing, is just plain ignorant and false.

    • by js7a ( 579872 ) <<gro.kivob> <ta> <semaj>> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:02PM (#4455909) Homepage Journal
      Apple would be positivly stupid not to immediatly fly Rob Malda over for a "Switch" spot.

      A huge fraction of technical (and high-spending) PC users who might switch know exactly what Slashdot is.

      It would be awesome: "... I'm Rob Malda, and I run Slashdot.org"

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:59PM (#4456445)
        "I was compiling this SMB client ... on the PC... and it was like BEEPBEEPBEEPBEEPBEEPBEEP. And then... like... half of my code was gone. And I was like... nnngh? It devoured... my code. It was really good code. And then I had to write it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good. It's kind of... .... a bummer. I'm Rob Malda and I crash websites by posting them to Slashdot."

        tee hee
  • by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:18PM (#4455524)
    i wish it would have been explained that way...

    the writer of the eWeek article is Nick De Plumme (or something) - he's the guy from ThinkSecret....

    hardly a "journalistic" website.

    • by jamesoutlaw ( 87295 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:26PM (#4455598) Homepage

      Remember a few months ago when several web publishers lost their Press Credentials to MacWorld for publishing Rumors? "Nick dePlume" was one of them. Matthew Rothenburg wrote an editorial entitled "Let My People Go" (or something like that) saying that these so-called "rumor" sites should be allowed the same privileges as the "real" press. Since then he's been co-writing articles every now and then with dePlume (that's a pen name, who knows that the guy's real name). I think that it's to try and lend some credibility to Think Secret and dePlume.

      Of course, this is pure speculation and all. who knows. haha

      Regardless of the truth, Rothenburg's "association" with Think Secret has basically caused me to lose respect for him.
      • by MatthewRothenberg ( 617484 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:49PM (#4455817)
        >>Matthew Rothenburg wrote an editorial entitled "Let My People Go" (or something like that) saying that these so-called "rumor" sites should be allowed the same privileges as the "real" press.


        Actually, I wrote that "rumor and speculation" was a silly yardstick for Apple to apply to press access, since all the mainstream press sources that cover Apple (present company included) happily employ both:

        http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,338330,00.a sp

        I also said that Apple has a right (and a need) to establish a method for differentiating between the press and enthusiasts when it comes to allocating press badges. However, applying this particular measure to the small fry and not the big fish smacks of intimidation.

        Press access is a privilege that Apple can extend or withhold, but if they're not going to apply it fairly or consistently, I reserve the right to call them on it.

        Matthew Rothenberg
        Online editor
        Ziff Davis Media

    • by MatthewRothenberg ( 617484 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:37PM (#4455709)

      We made it very clear that we're working from sources, and that the release of this information has not been sanctioned.

      Of course, I stand behind it completely, and I recommend that you check out our track record for accuracy when reporting unannounced Mac news on eWEEK: The end of Mac OS 9 booting and the rise of IBM's 64-bit PowerPC are just two recent examples of stories we nailed to the wall in advance of the official PR.

      It's not my place to speak for Think Secret, but Mac stories we put on eWEEK adhere strictly to a three-source rule (and always make a point of offering Apple an opportunity to respond, not that the company often avails itself of the chance). While we'd never burn a source, we make it absolutely clear what's official writ and what's unreleased insider information. This falls into the latter camp, but that doesn't detract a bit from its authenticity.

      Check back with me in a month, gsfprez, and we can talk about whether or not this story has legs. :-)

      Matthew Rothenberg
      Online editor
      Ziff Davis Media

      • by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:52PM (#4456383)
        >Check back with me in a month, gsfprez, and we can talk about whether or not this story has legs. :-)

        while it may have legs or not - that doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, rumor - and not solid facts coming from the 1 Infinite Loop Compound.

        Therefore, it doesn't change the fact that the /. report that "Apple: MacOS X to Get Journaling FS" is not an accurate way to announce this news.

        "Apple: Mac OS X rumored to get a JFS in 10.2.2" - which is what your report is - would be far more acurate, and acceptable of a title.

        It also doesn't help to involve yourself with someone who is only slightly more accurate than Ryan Meader. While nothing is as bad as MacOS Rumors - which is only slightly less accurate than CrazyAppleRumors, you might do well to re-examine the useless Ryan Meader-esque drivvel Think Secret has given us in the past...

        - the amazing iPad - which was such an amazingly horrid case of egg-face that they've deleted every possible history of it on their site

        - G5s since may of 1999(http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/0599.html )

        - Mac OS Lite on a Palm-like device since june of 1999
        (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/0699.ht ml)

        I could go on... but i think that my basic point is that if you're going to lecture people on sexual harassment, you don't have Bill Clinton co-write the material with you - it diminishes your credibility, regardless.

        i do give marks to eWeek for their news on the Mac - its fairly unbiased compared to other tech news outlets like c|net - and i do note that the actual article at your website does clarify clearly that this is, indeed, rumor, and not Apple Computer making an announcement.

        so - while it seemed like a slam on you and eWeek, it was more of a slam on /. and Nick dePlume. My apologies for not being more clear.
  • by benedict ( 9959 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:20PM (#4455540)
    I wonder if that stated 10-15% performance hit
    is with or without journal on a separate disk.

    I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet.
    • Since about 90% of mac users won't ever put a second disk in, and there isn't even room in an iMac for a second disk that I know of, I'd imagine they are only talking about on a single disk.
      • I would disagree, as most Mac users I know have at least 3 disks in their towers and I have an external (firewire) drive on my iMac. This is only my experience and may be abnormal, but given the heavy use of Macs in multimedia (with the accompanying monstrously large files) I seriously doubt it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:20PM (#4455548)
    At least this shows Apple's serious with courting the tech-savvy audience. Before, the reason to go with Apple was out of preference for the UI... and that was it. OS9 was ungainly and unstable. With OSX there're now true geeky reasons to want a Mac. No more being ashamed of coveting the rainbow apple! I want protected memory/journalling fs/unix multiuser/process stability/gnu tools/etc ... and an interface that looks like i can eat it for dessert!
  • by Hairy_Potter ( 219096 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:21PM (#4455552) Homepage
    One of the main reasons I haven't switched from the despotic Linux family with it's Nazi-esque SysV init scripts is the presence of awesome journaling capability, knowing that I can pull out the power cords on my SCSI disks and reconstruct data on the fly gives me a lot of peace of mind.

    But, having cut my eye teeth on SunOS 4.1.3, I still have a hankering for the old rc files, and the general Berkeleyness of the BSDs. Will Apple be good enough to help roll a decent journaling file system back into the BDSs, so I can return to my blissfil Berkely rc days, and not worry about the cleaning lady pulling out my RAID power outlet to use the vacuum cleaner?
    • This will probably have its source released as part of Darwin (simply because it's a low-level function; I don't have any news about this), but it will also probably only work on HFS+ filesystems, so someone else would still have to adapt it to other filesystems to add it to the other BSDs.
    • by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @05:34PM (#4456765)
      Hmm, Nazi-esque? I can see the conversation now..

      Nazi SYS5 init architect:

      Mein Furher! Ve needen maken startup of system harrrrrder to administrrrrate. Ist too eazy now. Even girly non-blue eyed non-Aryans can administrate serrrrvers now.

      SVR4 Nazi Furher:

      Ja wohl!!! How can we skrrrrrrew de administrrrrators?

      Nazi SYS5 init architect:

      split ze starrrrtup scripts, makingkt dem more komplicated.

      Umm, I don't think that happened. I find SVR4 style easier. Every service in it's own seperate file. Ever try to start a system server on BSD by hand? It's harder than you think. In SV$ land, I can take any server down by running a kill script and restart it by running its startup script. hell, even FreeBSD has a SVR4 style init directory (granted, only for a single run level now). And if it's all that hard, just make /etc/rc3.d/S99local and run your stuff form there. RedHat (and probably most other Linuxes) have runlevel editors that make administration pretty easy.

      Hmm, Berkeleyness of Berkeley software, who knew?

      FreeBSD (maybe all {Free,Net,Open}BSDs) uses SoftUpdates, which in some ways is better than journalling [cmu.edu], depending on what you want.

  • by Hooya ( 518216 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:28PM (#4455624) Homepage
    do you get an "Elvis has left the building" message?
  • by Gorm the DBA ( 581373 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:28PM (#4455628) Journal
    yeah, yeah, yeah...Journaling is sooo 1990's.

    A new and cool feature would be a file system that maintained a Weblog...

    Today I stored my user's tax return...what a piece of crap...he actually expects the IRS to believe that he donated 40,000 to the MDA?...I think I'll just switch a few numbers around and drop a hint to the audit hotline

    Yeah, that could be good...where's the SourceForge project for this?

  • by webslacker ( 15723 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:33PM (#4455668)
    Rob, what kind of laptop is it?

    And will you be writing a review of OSX and Apple laptops in the near future?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:38PM (#4455716)
    Seriously. And he wrote a book about it which is practically a How-To-Write-A-High-Performance-Journaled-Database like-FS manual. I've read it and it was one of the most clear and broad writeups on how to develop a FS from both a theoretical and (more importantly) practical viewpoint. If he's really the guy behind this FS, MacOS X is about to get a BIG BIG upgrade.

    Now, the really big question for me is... Is this considered part of Darwin, and as such, will it be OSS?
  • by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:41PM (#4455746) Homepage Journal

    .. from stinky Mac OS 10.2.2 and its 10-15% slower journaling file system to WindowsXP.
    [insert stock photo of hot chick here]
    I'm a 32 year old marketing director and demand the ultimate in performance without sacrificing robustness and file system safety. Only Microsoft can bring you the features you need with the performance required for your very important day-to-day work
  • by MidKnight ( 19766 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:02PM (#4455906)
    I'm sure some people out there realize this, but I wanted to point it out: having a journaling file system isn't meant for the typical user who has their laptop to check email & surf the web. Duh! No one using a graphical interface would want to sacrifice 15% of eye-candy processing power just to have a more reliable file system.

    This change is meant for people who are using OS X on *servers*... possibly even (gasp!) headless servers! I'm currently running a webserver & IMAP mail server off of an OS X box, and I never actually pull up the GUI on it (why would I need to?). But I'd love to have the added assurance of JFS on it. This is the market that Elvis is meant for.

    Apple is trying to edge their way into the low-end server market, which is already over-crowded. Putting this feature into their OS, even though it's turned off by default, is a big feature difference for the XServe-purchasing crowd.

    So, unless you're really nervous about losing your porn, your desktop machine doesn't need this.

    • Umm... no. (Score:5, Informative)

      by tgd ( 2822 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:09PM (#4455978)
      Unless Apple is caching its graphics to disc before displaying them, it wouldn't make a different in your "eye-candy processing power".

      Thats a 15% hit in disk performance, not system performance.
    • by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:21PM (#4456089)
      A journaling file system is actually primarily useful for laptop users: it insulates laptops and external devices on laptops from power failures and other things that happen to laptops.

      On servers, despite its popularity, journaling makes much less sense: there are better ways to recover from failures, and the performance hit really does matter.

  • by El_Smack ( 267329 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:04PM (#4455936)

    Do I see an Apple "switcher" ad featuring CmdrTaco in the near future?
  • by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <.gundbear. .at. .pacbell.net.> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:12PM (#4455999) Homepage
    A week with a Mac laptop, running OS X?

    We are all doomed! Once you go Mac, you never go back!

    Next he'll be dressing up in black, sporting a goatee, and drinking pretentious coffee drinks...

    Like him [penny-arcade.com]!
  • by peel ( 242881 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:14PM (#4456017)
    What I want is a filesystem that supports 1)Long File Names 2)Large Files (over 4GB) 3)Journaling and 4) can be used between Linux, Mac OS X and whatever else. Unfortuantely there are currently no filesystems that mett all of these criteria. The closest one unfortunately is FAT32, only even it falls way short. Until then it is very difficult for me to share my firewire drive between multiple platforms. -peel

    just my carrot for the button soup.
  • by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:17PM (#4456049) Homepage
    A journaling filesystem does not "provide corporate Mac sites with a new, historical view of their data"; all it does is increase reliability.
  • by rabtech ( 223758 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:41PM (#4456280) Homepage
    I assume that this rumor means that the new FS will be "more extensive" in its journaling capabilities, not features.

    NTFS supports DACLs (Discretionary Access Control Lists. Grant rights specifically on files, folders, or both for any specific combination of rights. Yes, even includes things like execute, though most users don't get THAT granular.) It also supports Auditing via an ACL-like mechanism. Wanna see if user sally01 read file X? Add her with READ to the audit list. Who is renaming files in c:\docs? add Everyone with rename/modify to the Audit list.

    NTFS does quotas, junction points (links), and reparse points. Reparse points allow things like EFS to work without the app being aware of it. If I wanted to replace the word "microsoft" with BORK BORK BORK on the disk, I could write a parsing driver and install it. Then, any file with my driver's signature in its reparse point list would be handed off to my driver for processing before being saved to disk or read from disk to an application.

    There are plenty of other features as well, but the point is that to be a better filesystem than NTFS would take a huge amount of work on the filesystem itself, plus getting the OS to support it. However it is relatively easy to attack a specific point of NTFS (its journaling) and make your filesystem do that specific thing better.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser