3 ms·
APFS, although not buggy per se, also has its disadvantages: 'macOS High Sierra APFS Performance is Inferior to HFS on Apple’s Fastest SSD: all cost, no benefi
by chmars 9y ago
APFS, although not buggy per se, also has its disadvantages:
'macOS High Sierra APFS Performance is Inferior to HFS on Apple’s Fastest SSD: all cost, no benefit, at least not yet.'
https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20171124_2015-macOS-HighSierra-FileCopySpeed.html https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2017/20171124_2015-macO...
- Osmium 9y agoI wouldn't say no benefit ... instant directory size information, instant copies are both pretty cool.
- ghostcluster 9y agoIt's slower than the format it was replacing. And the upgrade destroyed quite a number of partitions. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8085383 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8085383
- dilap 9y agohaving a more reliable filesystem is a huge benefit! it's amazing how stuff will bitrot on HFS+.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y agoHow does APFS prevent bitrot? I thought it doesn’t do checksumming and error correction, and instead passes this task on to the SSD’s memory controller.
- dilap 9y agohmm, actually, i just sort of assumed it would fix the bitrot issue! that would be bad if it didn't...
- danieldk 9y agoIt checksums metadata [1]: http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2016/06/19/apfs-part5/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2016/06/19/apfs-part5/ From the same article: the engineers contend that Apple devices basically don’t return bogus data. NAND uses extra data, e.g. 128 bytes per 4KB page, so that errors can be corrected and detected. (For reference, ZFS uses a fixed size 32 byte checksum for blocks ranging from 512 bytes to megabytes. That’s small by comparison, but bear in mind that the SSD’s ECC is required for the expected analog variances within the media.)
- dilap 9y agowow, that's very disappointing.