4 ms·
You are comparing the maximum write data rate of HFS+ and APFS with the write rate of mkfile with small blocks. I do not think you can assume that the write rat
by raimue 9y ago
You are comparing the maximum write data rate of HFS+ and APFS with the write rate of mkfile with small blocks. I do not think you can assume that the write rate in the filesystem stays the same if you decrease the block size. The expensive operation might be the block allocation that is easy for larger blocks, but for small blocks it might try to squeeze them in somewhere to avoid fragmentation.
Yes, syscalls are expensive and most likely became very expensive with the Meltdown patch. Even more so on OS X, where filesystem drivers are running in their own process.
I am not arguing against performance drops due to both Meltdown path or APFS, but I do not think your data shows the conclusion you are using in the headline.
- mpweiher 9y agoYou didn't read the headline. Or the article. Or the referenced (linked) article. Seriously: a rebuttal of what you wrote is easy, but amounts to rephrasing the article.
- rudedogg 9y agoWas there something that prevented testing HFS+ vs. HFS+?
- loeg 9y agoPossibly: > As part of the upgrade process, the macOS High Sierra installer will automatically convert an SSD to the new APFS https://blog.macsales.com/42884-is-it-possible-not-to-convert-to-apfs-when-upgrading-to-high-sierra https://blog.macsales.com/42884-is-it-possible-not-to-conver...
- Girlang 9y agoMac Zealots will believe what they want. Ignore them.
- throwawaysecops 9y ago> Yes, syscalls are expensive and most likely became very expensive with the Meltdown patch > The headline is completely bogus. One of your statements is therefore bogus.