Slashdot Mirror


APFS Is Not Optional (apple.com)

From a new Apple knowledge base article: When you upgrade to macOS High Sierra, systems with all flash storage configurations are converted automatically. Systems with hard disk drives (HDD) and Fusion drives won't be converted to APFS. You can't opt-out of the transition to APFS.

6 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Ok... and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Re the actual technical merits:

    • APFS is faster
    • APFS gives more accurate time stamping of files
    • APFS allows concurrent access, while HFS+ has central locks, which ends up being a massive performance improvement on very multicore machines, since they're not constantly sat in spin-locks waiting on IO
    • APFS supports snapshotting and copy on write
    • APFS supports sparse files
    • APFS's implementation of hard links actually works
    • APFS has decent, not-hacked-in support for TRIM
    • APFS encryption is more secure
    • APFS can quickly compute the size of the contents of a directory
    • APFS can do write coalescing
    • APFS uses volumes, rather than partitions, letting them be dynamically resized
  2. Looks like a nice modern filesystem by Khopesh · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not a Mac guy, so I had to look this up: Apple File System (APFS) is a decent modern filesystem with most features you'd expect from something developed somewhat recently. Here's a FS comparison where you can compare it to the latest and greatest competing formats like Linux's ex4 and Btrfs, Sun's (Oracle's) ZFS, and of course Microsoft's NTFS.

    Features uncommon elsewhere include native snapshotting, encryption, and error correction.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  3. I wouldn't stress about this... by njvack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, I know: filesystems take a long time to mature and not lose data. You want your FS tested — widely — before you rely on it to not eat data.

    Here's the thing: iOS 10.3 included an upgrade to APFS. Since March, every updated iPhone and iPad has been running this in production. Most of them have no idea, because it's basically invisible. I haven't heard of any problems stemming from this change.

    So, while OS X has different (more variable, probably) use cases from the sealed systems in iOS, it's very likely that in "normal" usage, APFS is going to be reliable for folks.

  4. Re:Ok... and? by Sneeka2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're right, let's stick with HFS+ then.

    --
    Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
  5. Re:Glad I opted out of... by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only problem I can think of is that the drive may be inaccessible by other file systems.
    If the OS breaks down for some reason, this may make recovery of data a serious issue.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  6. Re:Glad I opted out of... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it's exactly like windows.

    being forced into a feature solely to boost the size of the user base for testing (captcha: debugs)...... it's beta. it's two fucking months old.. will be less than six months old when sierra goes gold.. still beta at that point, afaiac..... and it's a damn file system... just, ya know, the most important piece of an operating system that uses storage. no big. good thing apple has a totally flawless history of introducing new features with no bugs, huh? absolutely nothing to worry about.. not the first time apple has forced something on users.. won't be the last. this one just has the potential to be the nastiest..

    i get it though. i wouldn't want to run "..the worst file system ever" (l.torvalds) either. hfs dates back to 1985. the year 'back to the future' hit theaters. hfs+ enhancements to it are from 1998 (os 8.1... EIGHT POINT ONE.. 680x0 was still a thing then, for fuck's sake). it's about time they use a file system actually designed for a unix-like operating system (everything has been duct tape and bailing wire since the first osx). yo, apple..what the fuck took you so long? your meta data engineer finally retire? and your new youngins don't know how to byte-swap on read or write?

    Actually, APFS has been in development for almost 5 years now. Pretty much right after they decided to ditch the ZFS Project (Thanks, Oracle!). And it was actually "silently" deployed publicly (sort-of) in iOS 10.1 (IIRC) (that was the bug-check you speak of). That is a lot longer than you claim.

    https://www.macobserver.com/an...

    And, Apple actually has a nearly spotless record when it comes to File Systems. You can say some things about HFS+; but "unreliable" ain't one of 'em! And, generating from the LACK-of "all my data is gone!" reports from iOS owners, it looks like, despite its young age, that APFS is already quite reliable. That's why Apple feels like it's ok to roll it out to macOS.

    So, if your iPhone/iPad is on 10.1 or greater, you have actually been at least temporarily exposed to APFS for that long, and so has the rest of the iOS-owning-public. That's why they felt it was trustworthy enough to roll-out permanently in iOS 10.3. Because they had already done a "dry run" on Millions of iOS devices.

    I think the reason that HDDs/Fusion Drives aren't being automatically converted to APFS yet, is that they have spent the lion's share of optimization up to this point on Flash-Based systems, and will eventually circle back-around to optimizing HDD metrics, too.

    Apple is definitely not "done" with APFS; but it is far from a Beta at this point.

    And as for age: How old, exactly, is NTFS? How about ext? For NTFS, the first version was created in 1993, and the most recent version in 2001. Not too bloody different from HFS and HFS+. As for ext, it started as just plain-ol' "ext" in 1992, and the most recent version ("ext4"), like most open-source stuff, has a more, er, "storied" history. It looks like it was finally adopted in 2008, which is still nearly a decade ago.