5 ms·

Is there any reason to use APFS on desktop?

by xaduha 10y ago

kentor 10y ago
I heard there will be copy-on-write for files. For web devs this would save a lot of space and time when copying files from yarn cache to node_modules.
- collinmanderson 10y ago
  I wonder what it means for appending data to a large log file. Does the entire log file need to get copied on every write (or just a block of the file?)
sargun 10y ago
There are a couple features missing from HFS+. Some of these are implemented in APFS: * Case sensitivity * Clones extents / ranges (reflinking) * Holes in the middle of files * ACLs * Collapsing file ranges * Per file compression and per file encryption These are useful for apps like SQLite or other stores which implement a multi user, log structured store.
- yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
  Isn't there a flag to make hfs case sensitive? Programs react poorly because it's rare, but it's available.
- mrmondo 10y ago
  FYI - HFS is capability of case sensitivity and is an option during formatting. I believe it even used to be the default.
  - duskwuff 10y ago
    HFS and HFS+ were never case-sensitive by default on Mac OS. Case-sensitive HFS+ was made available as an option in Mac OS 10.0, but was always glitchy (especially for boot volumes), because many applications depended on case insensitivity.
    - rsynnott 10y ago
      I think possibly the point of confusion is that very early versions of MacOS X (the original MacOS X server, and some of the MacOS X DPs, anyway) used UFS by default, not HFS+. UFS is case sensitive.
    - Tanegashima 10y ago
      I have a case sensitive HFS+ and everything works fine. That was a problem with older versions of Adobe suite, but since lots of people on Macs used Adobe Apps...
      - TheAceOfHearts 10y ago
        Isn't the problem still present? A few months back I tried installing the latest version of Photoshop and Illustrator, and it didn't let me.
    - masklinn 10y ago
      > was always glitchy (especially for boot volumes), because many applications depended on case insensitivity. So CS HFS+ is not glitchy, and CS APFS will not magically fix applications with CI dependency.
  - TheAceOfHearts 10y ago
    A quick note to any readers... I'd suggest avoiding a case-sensitive HFS+ boot volume with macOS. I used one for over a year, and it just brings trouble. The biggest problems I encountered were (1) occasional bugs with Homebrew formulas, and (2) Adobe's applications cannot be installed on a case-sensitive file system.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  What about snapshots? Does APFS offer efficient user-created snapshots? I run Ubuntu with btrfs, and for me this is a killer feature.
  - karlshea 10y ago
    > Does APFS offer efficient user-created snapshots? Yes: https://arstechnica.com/apple/2017/02/testing-out-snapshots-in-apples-next-generation-apfs-file-system/ https://arstechnica.com/apple/2017/02/testing-out-snapshots-... I'm hoping it will make Time Machine a lot better.
- trasz 10y ago
  FWIW, HFS+ fully supported NFSv4 ACLs since... no idea, but they were already there in 2008.
petethepig 10y ago
My hope is that it will improve Time Machine performance / reliability.
- yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
  COW should do wonders for performance, but COW with no data checksums would make me more nervous about reliability (only one copy of files to corrupt)
  - mrmondo 10y ago
    I agree to a point, one factor that can help mitigate this however is using a quality SSD where it's onboard memory has ECC, I suspect Apple sees the near future of end user computing as gaining ECC for all memory by standard which is something I've wanting for years but games have been played by CPU manufacturers to prevent the use of high end desktop CPUs in server environments by I believe purposely kneecapping them from using ECC memory (citation probably needed here).
    - SXX 10y ago
      > but games have been played by CPU manufacturers Plural? Intel and who else?
      - mrmondo 10y ago
        I was trying to be nice ;) hehe
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    I haven't done any serious analysis of Time Machine (or of APFS for that matter), but I think in general Time Machine also only keeps one copy of files. So APFS isn't worse than the existing situation. Arbitrarily keeping multiple copies blows up the disk requirements. You can intentionally keep old copies around in APFS via snapshots, which is what APFS will probably do when implementing Time Machine. What Apple added for the existing Time Machine on HFS+ was an extension of the Unix concept of hard links to files (where there is only one copy). They added hard links to directories. Generic Unix avoids doing that for a number of reasons.
kalleboo 10y ago
I believe one reason APFS is touted is because the HFS+ data structures have one big global lock, whereas APFS allows for multithreading which ought to improve performance on multi-core machines.

Is there any reason to use APFS on desktop?

by xaduha 10y ago

Is there any reason to use APFS on desktop?

I heard there will be copy-on-write for files. For web devs this would save a lot of space and time when copying files from yarn cache to node_modules.

collinmanderson 10y ago
I wonder what it means for appending data to a large log file. Does the entire log file need to get copied on every write (or just a block of the file?)

sargun 10y ago

There are a couple features missing from HFS+. Some of these are implemented in APFS: * Case sensitivity * Clones extents / ranges (reflinking) * Holes in the middle of files * ACLs * Collapsing file ranges * Per file compression and per file encryption These are useful for apps like SQLite or other stores which implement a multi user, log structured store.

yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
Isn't there a flag to make hfs case sensitive? Programs react poorly because it's rare, but it's available.
mrmondo 10y ago
FYI - HFS is capability of case sensitivity and is an option during formatting. I believe it even used to be the default.
- duskwuff 10y ago
  HFS and HFS+ were never case-sensitive by default on Mac OS. Case-sensitive HFS+ was made available as an option in Mac OS 10.0, but was always glitchy (especially for boot volumes), because many applications depended on case insensitivity.
  - rsynnott 10y ago
    I think possibly the point of confusion is that very early versions of MacOS X (the original MacOS X server, and some of the MacOS X DPs, anyway) used UFS by default, not HFS+. UFS is case sensitive.
  - Tanegashima 10y ago
    I have a case sensitive HFS+ and everything works fine. That was a problem with older versions of Adobe suite, but since lots of people on Macs used Adobe Apps...
    - TheAceOfHearts 10y ago
      Isn't the problem still present? A few months back I tried installing the latest version of Photoshop and Illustrator, and it didn't let me.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > was always glitchy (especially for boot volumes), because many applications depended on case insensitivity. So CS HFS+ is not glitchy, and CS APFS will not magically fix applications with CI dependency.
- TheAceOfHearts 10y ago
  A quick note to any readers... I'd suggest avoiding a case-sensitive HFS+ boot volume with macOS. I used one for over a year, and it just brings trouble. The biggest problems I encountered were (1) occasional bugs with Homebrew formulas, and (2) Adobe's applications cannot be installed on a case-sensitive file system.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
What about snapshots? Does APFS offer efficient user-created snapshots? I run Ubuntu with btrfs, and for me this is a killer feature.
- karlshea 10y ago
  > Does APFS offer efficient user-created snapshots? Yes: https://arstechnica.com/apple/2017/02/testing-out-snapshots-in-apples-next-generation-apfs-file-system/ https://arstechnica.com/apple/2017/02/testing-out-snapshots-... I'm hoping it will make Time Machine a lot better.
trasz 10y ago
FWIW, HFS+ fully supported NFSv4 ACLs since... no idea, but they were already there in 2008.

petethepig 10y ago

My hope is that it will improve Time Machine performance / reliability.

yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
COW should do wonders for performance, but COW with no data checksums would make me more nervous about reliability (only one copy of files to corrupt)
- mrmondo 10y ago
  I agree to a point, one factor that can help mitigate this however is using a quality SSD where it's onboard memory has ECC, I suspect Apple sees the near future of end user computing as gaining ECC for all memory by standard which is something I've wanting for years but games have been played by CPU manufacturers to prevent the use of high end desktop CPUs in server environments by I believe purposely kneecapping them from using ECC memory (citation probably needed here).
  - SXX 10y ago
    > but games have been played by CPU manufacturers Plural? Intel and who else?
    - mrmondo 10y ago
      I was trying to be nice ;) hehe
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  I haven't done any serious analysis of Time Machine (or of APFS for that matter), but I think in general Time Machine also only keeps one copy of files. So APFS isn't worse than the existing situation. Arbitrarily keeping multiple copies blows up the disk requirements. You can intentionally keep old copies around in APFS via snapshots, which is what APFS will probably do when implementing Time Machine. What Apple added for the existing Time Machine on HFS+ was an extension of the Unix concept of hard links to files (where there is only one copy). They added hard links to directories. Generic Unix avoids doing that for a number of reasons.

kalleboo 10y ago

I believe one reason APFS is touted is because the HFS+ data structures have one big global lock, whereas APFS allows for multithreading which ought to improve performance on multi-core machines.