I will say that APFS is a must have update from HFS+. It has copy-on-write functionality, snapshots, and other stuff that make sense. It has a very interesting facility for encryption to allow for volume, file, and almost anything in between, with keys for everything able to be different.
However, it doesn't have the good bit-rot detection that ZFS, ReFS + Storage Spaces, and btrfs have. In fact, it doesn't have any real robust drive scrubbing type facility to find and (even better) repair ECC errors. I read that Apple is assuming that all data is stored on "premium" storage media, so they didn't add CRC checking to the code. Or, this could be not included due to performance reasons.
In any case, this is much needed upgrade. However, it still is behind everyone else, especially when it comes to bit rot.
Bit rot repair is nice when it works. But it is pretty fragile in ZFS. Also, since Apple is moving to an all-SSD ecosystem, CRCs become far less necessary; because it isn't really an ANALOG read/write system like with spinning rust.
If you own a mac you quickly realize it will always be the platform software works the worst on, especially open source stuff, and even when compared to linux. It gets annoying. Would I blame Apple for any specific software? No, but obviously there is something wrong with their ecosystem that it consistently doesn't get as much developer attention.
I sure hope OSS doesn't run slow on macOS, because about 80% of the OS itself is based on Open Source projects.
And any performance issues with ported Linux applications are 100% due to sloppy porting of libraries.
Why do you ask such a question is beyond me. But alas there are no 'stupid questions' only 'stupid answers'. Or as Master Ken would phrase it: 'only stupid people, that ask those questions'. I lost track, what eas your question again?
Oh, zfs! I remember it corrupting all my file systems while I was a university student. Maybe it was the Linux implementation, I don't know, but I'm never touching that fs again. Also my NAS corrupted its file system more recently and guess which fs it was?
I have been running ZFS for ~5 years now across ~40 servers. Never failed once.
And I have run HFS and HFS+ since 1984 or '85, on several dozen machines. Never failed once.
They've been trying for a long time now. At one point in the 10.5 or 10.6 era of OS X, they had a working ZFS implementation that got scrapped at the very last second before shipping because reasons.
Apple knows that HFS+ is garbage, and has been working to fix that.
Actually both World if Warcraft and Eve Online can not perform an online upgrade on a case sensitive HFS+ Well, don't know it is right now, but while I had them on a case sensitive external drive a few years ago, they both complained during updates.
Now I just store any data I care about on a NAS running a linux ext4 filesystem.
Yeah, that sure helped with a 4 drive RAID in a Buffalo NAS a friend had, that couldn't rebuild the array with just one failed HD.
Got almost all the data back; but it wasn't any fun. Had to purchase software that let me pull out the drives, mount them in external enclosures, and mount/read the array from his Mac mini.
There must be something in this update that screws over the customer somewhere.
It could just be the latest Apple copying Samsung. Specifically the original Galaxy S. The catch there was that the replacement filesystem for mobile phones (Samsung RFS) was so slow during R/W operations that the OS actually would think programs locked up while performing I/O operations and force close them. "Lagfix" patches to fix this problem actually simply reformatted the system and data partitions with JFFS or ext2.
This is Apple, not Slamdung. They actually HAVE an engineering staff that understands things other than how to cold-copy the competition.
Not readable on anything other than Apple products, at least initially. Then again, the Linux HFS+ driver still can't write to volumes that have journalling enabled...
I've been running iOS 10.3 beta for the whole run on an iPhone 6 with 16GB of storage. There haven't been any problems, despite the limited space that it has to work with and how much it has to go and flush cache files and whatnot. I'd be surprised if there are more than a handful of problems related to the upgrade.
Thanks for the info. I'd still back my iphone up TWICE before installing iOS 10.3, though...
Hmmm...this actually sounds like a useful upgrade. Given Apple's recent "innovations," I'm left wondering what the catch is. There must be something in this update that screws over the customer somewhere.
Nope, sorry.
This is their response to other COW Filesystems, such as ZFS. Another thing that could have been wonderful, if Oracle hadn't locked it away for themselves.
Were we ever expecting Samsung to actually just toss all these things into the grinder? They had a fairly high end SoC, bunch of RAM and Flash, nice screens, etc. no reason to suspect that the PMIC itself was executing batteries. Why would you scrap something like that?
Actually, I would specifically blame the PMIC (or rather the engineer that set up the charging profiles for same); which poured WAAY too much current into the batteries during recharge, in an attempt to shorten the charging-time for their humongous (relative to the iPhone 7 or 7 plus) battery; which was in turn necessitated by their POS SoC's current-hogging habits.
Yeah, they better give these refurbs a new model name or they're going to cause problems in security lines. The "Samsung Galaxy Note 6 S", perhaps? The S is for Safe. Or Super. Or Something.
Slashdot Mirror
I will say that APFS is a must have update from HFS+. It has copy-on-write functionality, snapshots, and other stuff that make sense. It has a very interesting facility for encryption to allow for volume, file, and almost anything in between, with keys for everything able to be different.
However, it doesn't have the good bit-rot detection that ZFS, ReFS + Storage Spaces, and btrfs have. In fact, it doesn't have any real robust drive scrubbing type facility to find and (even better) repair ECC errors. I read that Apple is assuming that all data is stored on "premium" storage media, so they didn't add CRC checking to the code. Or, this could be not included due to performance reasons.
In any case, this is much needed upgrade. However, it still is behind everyone else, especially when it comes to bit rot.
Bit rot repair is nice when it works. But it is pretty fragile in ZFS. Also, since Apple is moving to an all-SSD ecosystem, CRCs become far less necessary; because it isn't really an ANALOG read/write system like with spinning rust.
And I have run HFS and HFS+ since 1984 or '85, on several dozen machines. Never failed once.
Now what?
Have you recovered 100% of your data from a 6 our of 10 drives failing within a 48 hours window?
Can you yank the drives out of one machine, put them into a pile, and then randomly plug them into another machine and access your data?
Can you do that while the OS is running?
How about in the middle of writing data?
Without running chkdsk or fsck?
Can you boot from your ZFS drives?
If you own a mac you quickly realize it will always be the platform software works the worst on, especially open source stuff, and even when compared to linux. It gets annoying. Would I blame Apple for any specific software? No, but obviously there is something wrong with their ecosystem that it consistently doesn't get as much developer attention.
I sure hope OSS doesn't run slow on macOS, because about 80% of the OS itself is based on Open Source projects.
And any performance issues with ported Linux applications are 100% due to sloppy porting of libraries.
Why do you ask such a question is beyond me.
But alas there are no 'stupid questions' only 'stupid answers'.
Or as Master Ken would phrase it: 'only stupid people, that ask those questions'.
I lost track, what eas your question again?
Dunno.
It was lost in all that self-aggrandizement.
You mean, like... using Samsung displays and RAM and having their CPUs manufactured in Samsung-owned foundries?
Samsung has fantastic FABRICATION capabilities. And they have some great COMPONENT engineering, too.
But as far as PRODUCT engineering, they are wildly inconsistent and unfocused.
Why would it matter if you trickle-charged your way to a fire or super-charged your way there?
The problem was with the battery size.
Who in their right mind would "not" make the charging process as efficient as possible?
Because, controlling heat during charging is all-important.
Are you suggesting they should stop trying to match their own fast-charging that works perfectly fine for the S6 (which I have), and likely others?
To what end?
Does the S6 have the same battery as the GN7?
If not, it's not the same. A larger battery will heat up more during charging.
A Great White reference! Can we be friends? :)
LOL, sure!
Maybe one of these years they will finally move to F2FS as the default for mobile devices. Apple finally added a new feature before Android had it.
Finally?
You better go recheck your history, bub!
Oh, zfs! I remember it corrupting all my file systems while I was a university student. Maybe it was the Linux implementation, I don't know, but I'm never touching that fs again.
Also my NAS corrupted its file system more recently and guess which fs it was?
I have been running ZFS for ~5 years now across ~40 servers. Never failed once.
And I have run HFS and HFS+ since 1984 or '85, on several dozen machines. Never failed once.
Now what?
Apple is Upgrading Millions of iOS Devices To a New Modern File System Today
Sweet. Maybe I'll purchase some Apple crap now...
a new file system -- called the Apple File System (APFS)
Wait. I thought you said a 'modern file system'. You know....like ZFS.
Well, since APFS has been in development for only a year or so, and ZFS is like 10 years old at this point, I'd say that APFS is the more "modern" FS.
No but it will probably help apple steal it.
STUFF IT, ASSHOLE!
Will this add any security against NSA / Immigration trying to steal your data?
Per-file encryption. Get one file decrypted, that's all you get. Now, start again on the next file...
In the spirit of "what could possibly go wrong" this may actually be one of those times you want to back up your device before upgrading.
You betcha!
They've been trying for a long time now. At one point in the 10.5 or 10.6 era of OS X, they had a working ZFS implementation that got scrapped at the very last second before shipping because reasons.
Apple knows that HFS+ is garbage, and has been working to fix that.
Not because "reasons". Because Oracle.
Actually both World if Warcraft and Eve Online can not perform an online upgrade on a case sensitive HFS+
Well, don't know it is right now, but while I had them on a case sensitive external drive a few years ago, they both complained during updates.
And that's Apple's fault?
Now I just store any data I care about on a NAS running a linux ext4 filesystem.
Yeah, that sure helped with a 4 drive RAID in a Buffalo NAS a friend had, that couldn't rebuild the array with just one failed HD.
Got almost all the data back; but it wasn't any fun. Had to purchase software that let me pull out the drives, mount them in external enclosures, and mount/read the array from his Mac mini.
There must be something in this update that screws over the customer somewhere.
It could just be the latest Apple copying Samsung. Specifically the original Galaxy S. The catch there was that the replacement filesystem for mobile phones (Samsung RFS) was so slow during R/W operations that the OS actually would think programs locked up while performing I/O operations and force close them. "Lagfix" patches to fix this problem actually simply reformatted the system and data partitions with JFFS or ext2.
This is Apple, not Slamdung. They actually HAVE an engineering staff that understands things other than how to cold-copy the competition.
Not readable on anything other than Apple products, at least initially. Then again, the Linux HFS+ driver still can't write to volumes that have journalling enabled...
And NTFS is STILL not documented; so...
I've been running iOS 10.3 beta for the whole run on an iPhone 6 with 16GB of storage. There haven't been any problems, despite the limited space that it has to work with and how much it has to go and flush cache files and whatnot. I'd be surprised if there are more than a handful of problems related to the upgrade.
Thanks for the info. I'd still back my iphone up TWICE before installing iOS 10.3, though...
ZFS have checksums.
Sadly we don't use ZFS for some stupid reason (maybe RAM for instance but I'd just get more RAM if needed.)
There are a number of reasons why we don't use ZFS; some technical, some political.
This is a good alternative.
Hmmm...this actually sounds like a useful upgrade. Given Apple's recent "innovations," I'm left wondering what the catch is. There must be something in this update that screws over the customer somewhere.
Nope, sorry.
This is their response to other COW Filesystems, such as ZFS. Another thing that could have been wonderful, if Oracle hadn't locked it away for themselves.
Twice-Baked.
Once Shy.
Were we ever expecting Samsung to actually just toss all these things into the grinder? They had a fairly high end SoC, bunch of RAM and Flash, nice screens, etc. no reason to suspect that the PMIC itself was executing batteries. Why would you scrap something like that?
Actually, I would specifically blame the PMIC (or rather the engineer that set up the charging profiles for same); which poured WAAY too much current into the batteries during recharge, in an attempt to shorten the charging-time for their humongous (relative to the iPhone 7 or 7 plus) battery; which was in turn necessitated by their POS SoC's current-hogging habits.
Yeah, they better give these refurbs a new model name or they're going to cause problems in security lines. The "Samsung Galaxy Note 6 S", perhaps? The S is for Safe. Or Super. Or Something.
Shitty?