8 ms·

> Flash / SSD Optimization I.e., a "unique copy-on-write design" > Space Sharing Basically, ZFS datasets. > Snapshots If those can be sent: Finally Time Ma

> Flash / SSD Optimization I.e., a "unique copy-on-write design" > Space Sharing Basically, ZFS datasets. > Snapshots If those can be sent: Finally Time Machine done right. > The AFP protocol is deprecated and cannot be used to share APFS formatted volumes. Interesting. > An open source implementation is not available at this time. Apple plans to document and publish the APFS volume format when Apple File System is released in 2017. Yay! Limitations: https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/content/documentation/FileManagement/Conceptual/APFS_Guide/UsingtheAppleFileSystem/UsingtheAppleFileSystem.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40016999-CH4-DontLinkElementID_24 https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/content/docum... Edit: > encryption models for each volume in a container: no encryption, single-key encryption, or multi-key encryption with per-file keys for file data and a separate key for sensitive metadata Nice. I hope they also include checksums for each block. Famously missing, but not the hardest thing to add considering all the features above: Compression (which HFS+ supports!)

PinguTS 10y ago
> The AFP protocol is deprecated and cannot be used to share APFS formatted volumes. Interesting. That is really interesting. I recognised with El Capitan that it already defaults to SMB instead of AFP when you don't give a scheme.
- duskwuff 10y ago
  AFP depends on having persistent, globally addressable IDs for files (CNIDs). Perhaps this is no longer available under APFS? While I imagine this might be retrofittable (netatalk manages it, after all), I can't blame Apple for wanting to ditch AFP. It's an ancient protocol at this point, and I'm frankly just amazed it still works at all.
- secalex 10y ago
  AFP is also a security disaster. Check out the spec for "DHX2" https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Networking/Conceptual/AFP/AFPSecurity/AFPSecurity.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Networ...
  - ghettoimp 10y ago
    Can you provide some details about what's wrong with it? (Not a security person, no idea how to evaluate such a claim)
- donatj 10y ago
  I'm very sad about the lack of AFP. It's so much easier to get going in linux than Samba.
karlshea 10y ago
> > Snapshots > If those can be sent: Finally Time Machine done right. If this ends up being true I can't wait—it's so frustrating watching tiny incremental backups take forever over the network. It seems like "Preparing" and "Cleaning up" take longer than moving the data.
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  it's so frustrating watching tiny incremental backups take forever over the network While waiting for APFS to become stable, buy Carbon Copy Cloner. $40. I love it. It's fundamentally rsync, but tailored to OS X. For personal use a single license covers an entire household. Every night CCC fires up on each laptop and each does an incremental clone to its own dedicated directory on my desktop machine. This clone is usually less than a few GB and takes about a minute to run. CCC doesn't have to be run daily, it can be told to run hourly instead. Time Machine running on my desktop then copies everything off to yet another disk. So my backup environment is: each laptop uses CCC to periodically clone to desktop the clones on the desktop are "traditional", CCC is told not to keep its own copies of modified files desktop runs time machine, makes hourly backups to a TM disk, old versions of files can be found there This gives me 3 copies of all data on each laptop: 1) on the laptop 2) on the desktop 3) on the desktop's Time Machine Volume If you create your users in the same order on each machine, or later go back and change the User IDs to match (under advanced options in Users and Groups) then the uids will match everywhere, and all files can be easily browsed in each location, with all file permissions intact.
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    CCC was what I used back in the day (IIRC it used to be free) to make the most reliable bit-for-bit backups of OS X machines. Time Machine skipping over so many files is kind of a nuisance to me.
    - newscracker 10y ago
      Unless you set the privacy in Time Machine to ignore certain drives/volumes/folders, you shouldn't really miss anything with a Time Machine backup. It usually ignores those files that aren't necessary and can be created by the OS or applications (like caches or temporary files, for example). What kinds of personal files did you lose with a Time Machine backup?
chmars 10y ago
What will happen to Spotlight search on network shares? At the moment, they are based on AFP.
chmars 10y ago
What will happen to Spotlight search on network shares? At the moment, they are based on AFP.
tym0 10y ago
I found forcing user to SMB weird given how crap their driver is...
- djrogers 10y ago
  Crap driver? It's not a 'driver', and smb has been natively supported for at least 8-10 years. It hasn't sucked in a looong time either. In fact recent OS versions have defaulted to smb v2 for file sharing.
  - skyebook 10y ago
    I believe when they flipped the switch to default to SMB it was actually to SMB 3 in 10.10. Anecdotally, I'd always found AFP in the Tiger and Leopard days to be faster than whichever version of SMB support was included at the time. Now I use the default SMB3 and it seems that 802.11ac and gigabit are bottlenecks (of course its 10 years later in the times of SSD's as well)
    - trynewideas 10y ago
      Apple deprecated AFP and switched to SMB2 by default in Mavericks/10.9 (https://www.apple.com/media/us/osx/2013/docs/OSX_Mavericks_Core_Technology_Overview.pdf https://www.apple.com/media/us/osx/2013/docs/OSX_Mavericks_C...). AFP was used only for Time Machines and connections to older Macs. And it wasn't just anecdotally faster; I worked for a storage company specializing in Mac workflows and AFP was empirically several times faster, especially on 1GbE and 10GbE networks. This was in part due to Apple ditching Samba in Lion/10.7 (http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_server_apple_replaces_samba_for_windows_networking_services.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10...) over GPL concerns and replaced it with their own shitty, incomplete implementation, which they didn't get up to Samba's standards until 10.10. I remember this being excruciating since customers had to either buy a third-party SMB implementation like DAVE to get any value out of 10GbE connections, or hope that the applications they wanted to use over the network supported AFP.
astrange 10y ago
> Famously missing, but not the hardest thing to add considering all the features above: Compression (which HFS+ supports!) HFS+ supports compression, so compression is not a new feature, so it's not on the New Features page. No problem!
- killercup 10y ago
  I can live with that! Be sure to make it LZ4!
MatthewWilkes 10y ago
Maybe even an end to the constant self deletion of the backups due to "inconsistencies".

PinguTS 10y ago

> The AFP protocol is deprecated and cannot be used to share APFS formatted volumes. Interesting. That is really interesting. I recognised with El Capitan that it already defaults to SMB instead of AFP when you don't give a scheme.

duskwuff 10y ago
AFP depends on having persistent, globally addressable IDs for files (CNIDs). Perhaps this is no longer available under APFS? While I imagine this might be retrofittable (netatalk manages it, after all), I can't blame Apple for wanting to ditch AFP. It's an ancient protocol at this point, and I'm frankly just amazed it still works at all.
secalex 10y ago
AFP is also a security disaster. Check out the spec for "DHX2" https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Networking/Conceptual/AFP/AFPSecurity/AFPSecurity.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Networ...
- ghettoimp 10y ago
  Can you provide some details about what's wrong with it? (Not a security person, no idea how to evaluate such a claim)
donatj 10y ago
I'm very sad about the lack of AFP. It's so much easier to get going in linux than Samba.

karlshea 10y ago

> > Snapshots > If those can be sent: Finally Time Machine done right. If this ends up being true I can't wait—it's so frustrating watching tiny incremental backups take forever over the network. It seems like "Preparing" and "Cleaning up" take longer than moving the data.

PhantomGremlin 10y ago
it's so frustrating watching tiny incremental backups take forever over the network While waiting for APFS to become stable, buy Carbon Copy Cloner. $40. I love it. It's fundamentally rsync, but tailored to OS X. For personal use a single license covers an entire household. Every night CCC fires up on each laptop and each does an incremental clone to its own dedicated directory on my desktop machine. This clone is usually less than a few GB and takes about a minute to run. CCC doesn't have to be run daily, it can be told to run hourly instead. Time Machine running on my desktop then copies everything off to yet another disk. So my backup environment is: each laptop uses CCC to periodically clone to desktop the clones on the desktop are "traditional", CCC is told not to keep its own copies of modified files desktop runs time machine, makes hourly backups to a TM disk, old versions of files can be found there This gives me 3 copies of all data on each laptop: 1) on the laptop 2) on the desktop 3) on the desktop's Time Machine Volume If you create your users in the same order on each machine, or later go back and change the User IDs to match (under advanced options in Users and Groups) then the uids will match everywhere, and all files can be easily browsed in each location, with all file permissions intact.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  CCC was what I used back in the day (IIRC it used to be free) to make the most reliable bit-for-bit backups of OS X machines. Time Machine skipping over so many files is kind of a nuisance to me.
  - newscracker 10y ago
    Unless you set the privacy in Time Machine to ignore certain drives/volumes/folders, you shouldn't really miss anything with a Time Machine backup. It usually ignores those files that aren't necessary and can be created by the OS or applications (like caches or temporary files, for example). What kinds of personal files did you lose with a Time Machine backup?

chmars 10y ago

What will happen to Spotlight search on network shares? At the moment, they are based on AFP.

chmars 10y ago

What will happen to Spotlight search on network shares? At the moment, they are based on AFP.

tym0 10y ago

I found forcing user to SMB weird given how crap their driver is...

djrogers 10y ago
Crap driver? It's not a 'driver', and smb has been natively supported for at least 8-10 years. It hasn't sucked in a looong time either. In fact recent OS versions have defaulted to smb v2 for file sharing.
- skyebook 10y ago
  I believe when they flipped the switch to default to SMB it was actually to SMB 3 in 10.10. Anecdotally, I'd always found AFP in the Tiger and Leopard days to be faster than whichever version of SMB support was included at the time. Now I use the default SMB3 and it seems that 802.11ac and gigabit are bottlenecks (of course its 10 years later in the times of SSD's as well)
  - trynewideas 10y ago
    Apple deprecated AFP and switched to SMB2 by default in Mavericks/10.9 (https://www.apple.com/media/us/osx/2013/docs/OSX_Mavericks_Core_Technology_Overview.pdf https://www.apple.com/media/us/osx/2013/docs/OSX_Mavericks_C...). AFP was used only for Time Machines and connections to older Macs. And it wasn't just anecdotally faster; I worked for a storage company specializing in Mac workflows and AFP was empirically several times faster, especially on 1GbE and 10GbE networks. This was in part due to Apple ditching Samba in Lion/10.7 (http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_server_apple_replaces_samba_for_windows_networking_services.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10...) over GPL concerns and replaced it with their own shitty, incomplete implementation, which they didn't get up to Samba's standards until 10.10. I remember this being excruciating since customers had to either buy a third-party SMB implementation like DAVE to get any value out of 10GbE connections, or hope that the applications they wanted to use over the network supported AFP.

astrange 10y ago

> Famously missing, but not the hardest thing to add considering all the features above: Compression (which HFS+ supports!) HFS+ supports compression, so compression is not a new feature, so it's not on the New Features page. No problem!

killercup 10y ago
I can live with that! Be sure to make it LZ4!

MatthewWilkes 10y ago

Maybe even an end to the constant self deletion of the backups due to "inconsistencies".