On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Theodore Tso wrote: > > It's pretty clear the Unicode conversion is being done in HFS+, not in > the VFS layer of Mac OS X. Ok. That's going to make it both easier and harder for them in the future. In particular, it probably means that their VFS layer really has no notion of this at all, and it's going to be fairly hard to support any kind of generic "backwards compatibility" layer on top of other filesystems. > So presumably if and when Mac OS adopts ZFS, they will be able to be > free of this mess, at least if they care about being compatible with > Solaris. I wouldn't hold my breadth on ZFS, considering the memory requirements. ZFS apparently wants *lots* of memory: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#ZFS_Administration_Considerations http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide in fact it seems that the FreeBSD people basically recomment against using ZFS on 32-bit kernels because of the memory use issues. Yes, it could be BSD-specific, but considering Solaris has the same recommendation, it sure seems like ZFS isn't ready for prime time on any low-end (read: consumer) hardware. Of course, in a year or two, 2GB will be the norm. Right now it's still fairly unusual on Mac hardware outside of the Mac Pro line (which, I think, comes with a *minimum* of 2GB), and the people who get it want it not for the filesystem caches, but for big photo editing jobs.. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
