Stability is not what people who look to ZFS and Btrfs are looking for. If Apple is to go with ZFS/OpenZFS, I'd ask the company to accelerate this step.ĭates? No! Dont ask! For me it's Mac Pro first then I might speculate about what's next on the road/rally to 10.10. I assume that "data-driven, adaptive algorithms" – as a potential next step for OpenZFS generally (not for OS X in particular) – could mean an end to people like me wondering about the pros and cons of tunables. In the meantime, includes a link to a presentation from the OpenZFS Developer Summit. When I have something substantial to report, it'll probably appear in the rally area. OK, what about performance of ZFS with (not in) Mavericks? My hesitation is likely to cease after 10.9.1 is released.) (Performance aside: I haven't used 10.9 enough to recommend it without hesitation. Holistically, the performance of Mavericks is very pleasing and hopefully a sign of better things to come. I always argue that benchmarks alone can't do justice to the quality of an OS. YMMV, personally I'm delighted … occasional wow moments.
OPENZFS MAC UPGRADE
– more than with any past major upgrade (Leopard to Snow Leopard, Lion to Mountain Lion and so on), the difference in performance between Mountain Lion and Mavericks is remarkable.
![openzfs mac openzfs mac](https://www.akitio.com/images/support/raidz-manager-05a.jpg)
![openzfs mac openzfs mac](http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/45/c7/334c034a3fd451e51fcd452b36083e20.png)
"… RAID-10 is preferable to either RAID-5/6 or RAID-Z for high performance work such as video editing …". Unlike snarfquest, I never worked with a 74.x version of MacZFS so I can't comment on its performance.