5 ms·

Sloppy and marketed as a stability build. There were hardly any new features in it.

coldtea 9y ago
Yeah, they just deployed a whole new FS to 100s of millions of users, in record time, with almost zero incidents. Hardly any new features...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Kimitri 9y ago
  Well... Almost zero but not quite. I remember it causing a lot of trouble for us using Vagrant for development, since the upgrade automatically (and silently) converted the FS to APFS on supported devices and broke all Vagrant's synced folders that were using NFS. The bug was only fixed in 10.13.2. https://github.com/docksal/docksal/issues/377 https://github.com/docksal/docksal/issues/377
- sakuronto 9y ago
  That's technically impressive but it's not much of a feature.
- untog 9y ago
  What new features do users gain from the new file system?
  - mygo 9y ago
    being able to duplicate a 1GB directory in an instant
    - untog 9y ago
      Is that a new feature? Isn't that just a performance improvement?
      - zbentley 9y ago
        "What are these 'car' things? Do they really offer new features over horses? Isn't that just a performance improvement?"
      - OskarS 9y ago
        It is most certainly a new feature. APFS is copy-on-write, so when you duplicate a folder, it happens instantly regardless of how big it is because it doesn't have to make a copy until you start modifying the files. Moreover, because of COW, duplicate folders don't take up any extra hard-drive space. I literally just duplicated a 100 gigabyte folder to test, it completed instantly and I'm not using any more drive space than I was before. It will only start using drive space if i start modifying the files. APFS is seriously cool (there are many other features besides this). It's not revolutionary (ZFS and Btrfs did all this before), but it's miles past HFS+. Apple has needed a new filesystem for more than a decade, and I'm glad it has finally happened, even if the OS update that brought it sucks pretty badly.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Optimized for SSDs, 64-bit inodes, faster timestamping (modification times etc), faster size calculations, faster cloning, safer copies, per-disk and file encryption, space saving sparse files, and more.
  - tinus_hn 9y ago
    The main feature is that it is a modern filesystem that doesn’t carry around 25 years of baggage.
    - swiley 9y ago
      That doesn't mean anything other than "it's new which is somehow better."
      - tinus_hn 9y ago
        It implies the design isn’t compromised by decisions that only made sense 25 years ago. For instance originally HFS didn’t even have journalling, it’s bolted on and not integrated.
        mrguyorama 9y ago
        It looks like the replacement has been compromised by other things however
  - tfar 9y ago
    Certainly not transparent file system compression. Can save developers couple 10 GBs but hey (source code, binaries, debug symbols, all compress nicely).
  - braderhart 9y ago
    You get your password leaked in this release!
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  You have to give Apple credit that they showed some restraint and didn't just add all the features to their new file system that they found in a table on some Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_file_systems&oldid=209063556#Features https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_fil...
  - jasonjayr 9y ago
    It's a good thing too. I wouldn't want a file system to implement the "Murders your wife" feature.
    - QasimK 9y ago
      I spotted that in the table. What the heck is that?
      - glhaynes 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser#Nina_Reiser's_disappearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser#Nina_Reiser's_disa...
- Someone1234 9y ago
  > new FS [...] in record time That's an odd brag. I might be from a bygone era but it used to be the case that filesystems were particularly conservative and rollouts equally so. Getting one deployed in "record time" is hardly difficult because everyone else is so conservative it can take tens of years in some cases. Look at Microsoft's ReFS, available in Server 2012, 2012 R2, Windows 8.1, Server 2016 and Windows 10 and has had eight public versions. Yet even after all of that it isn't the default partition type for Windows installations, and Microsoft only recommends it in specific circumstances[0]. So congrats to Apple's record time but I like my filesystems like I like my Toyota, reliable. [0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs/refs-overview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs...
  - csydas 9y ago
    It isn't the default version because currently it can't be booted from. ReFS is a pure storage-style File System, and it's been full of headaches since release for those trying to use it as such. Comparing it to APFS isn't really reasonable as they're meaning to accomplish two different goals both systems. (Keep in mind, some of the bugs that ReFS had included silent corruption on files over 2 TB, which is kind of important for even the upper-end of the small business spectrum when it comes to data. [1] Even with that many technical previews and idling in beta for many iterations, they missed a pretty big show-stopper for ReFS, which has no built in volume repair since it's not supposed to break. (To clarify, there is Integrity Streams, but it's more that if you still see corruption with Integrity Streams running, MS has no more tools in its kit to assist) I get what you're saying, you don't want to watch a FileSystem do the 200 meter, you wanna see it's averages across several marathons, and I agree. However, what is important to take from such an install base is that so far the reports have been embarrassing implementations of stuff around the filesystem, not the filesystem itself not doing what it should. The fact that users aren't howling about data silently corrupting or extreme system slowdowns is a fairly good portend thus far, Apple's sloppiness on the surrounding code not-withstanding. APFS being stable doesn't excuse the rest of Apple's mistakes, but I would say separate the two; it's pretty clear APFS was a pretty important project for them, and it's clear where their attention was. [1] - https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2017/01/30/windows-server-2016-data-deduplication-users-please-install-kb3216755/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2017/01/30/windo...
- lloeki 9y ago
  > with almost zero incidents. Sparse files are hopelessly broken, prompting Docker for Mac to roll back to qcow2 when using APFS[0] (HFS+ sparse files are fine). [0]: https://docs.docker.com/docker-for-mac/release-notes/#docker-community-edition-17120-ce-mac55-2018-02-27 https://docs.docker.com/docker-for-mac/release-notes/#docker... EDIT: reference
  - vvhn 9y ago
    HFS+ sparse files - now that’s a contradiction in terms.
    - lloeki 9y ago
      HFS+ sparse images, sorry (not quite the same as sparse files, but here DfM uses sparse files are used to create a raw image, so I wanted to lift some possible confusion, and tripped on)

Yeah, they just deployed a whole new FS to 100s of millions of users, in record time, with almost zero incidents. Hardly any new features...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Kimitri 9y ago
Well... Almost zero but not quite. I remember it causing a lot of trouble for us using Vagrant for development, since the upgrade automatically (and silently) converted the FS to APFS on supported devices and broke all Vagrant's synced folders that were using NFS. The bug was only fixed in 10.13.2. https://github.com/docksal/docksal/issues/377 https://github.com/docksal/docksal/issues/377
sakuronto 9y ago
That's technically impressive but it's not much of a feature.
untog 9y ago
What new features do users gain from the new file system?
- mygo 9y ago
  being able to duplicate a 1GB directory in an instant
  - untog 9y ago
    Is that a new feature? Isn't that just a performance improvement?
    - zbentley 9y ago
      "What are these 'car' things? Do they really offer new features over horses? Isn't that just a performance improvement?"
    - OskarS 9y ago
      It is most certainly a new feature. APFS is copy-on-write, so when you duplicate a folder, it happens instantly regardless of how big it is because it doesn't have to make a copy until you start modifying the files. Moreover, because of COW, duplicate folders don't take up any extra hard-drive space. I literally just duplicated a 100 gigabyte folder to test, it completed instantly and I'm not using any more drive space than I was before. It will only start using drive space if i start modifying the files. APFS is seriously cool (there are many other features besides this). It's not revolutionary (ZFS and Btrfs did all this before), but it's miles past HFS+. Apple has needed a new filesystem for more than a decade, and I'm glad it has finally happened, even if the OS update that brought it sucks pretty badly.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Optimized for SSDs, 64-bit inodes, faster timestamping (modification times etc), faster size calculations, faster cloning, safer copies, per-disk and file encryption, space saving sparse files, and more.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  The main feature is that it is a modern filesystem that doesn’t carry around 25 years of baggage.
  - swiley 9y ago
    That doesn't mean anything other than "it's new which is somehow better."
    - tinus_hn 9y ago
      It implies the design isn’t compromised by decisions that only made sense 25 years ago. For instance originally HFS didn’t even have journalling, it’s bolted on and not integrated.
      - mrguyorama 9y ago
        It looks like the replacement has been compromised by other things however
- tfar 9y ago
  Certainly not transparent file system compression. Can save developers couple 10 GBs but hey (source code, binaries, debug symbols, all compress nicely).
- braderhart 9y ago
  You get your password leaked in this release!
DonHopkins 9y ago
You have to give Apple credit that they showed some restraint and didn't just add all the features to their new file system that they found in a table on some Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_file_systems&oldid=209063556#Features https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_fil...
- jasonjayr 9y ago
  It's a good thing too. I wouldn't want a file system to implement the "Murders your wife" feature.
  - QasimK 9y ago
    I spotted that in the table. What the heck is that?
    - glhaynes 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser#Nina_Reiser's_disappearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser#Nina_Reiser's_disa...
Someone1234 9y ago
> new FS [...] in record time That's an odd brag. I might be from a bygone era but it used to be the case that filesystems were particularly conservative and rollouts equally so. Getting one deployed in "record time" is hardly difficult because everyone else is so conservative it can take tens of years in some cases. Look at Microsoft's ReFS, available in Server 2012, 2012 R2, Windows 8.1, Server 2016 and Windows 10 and has had eight public versions. Yet even after all of that it isn't the default partition type for Windows installations, and Microsoft only recommends it in specific circumstances[0]. So congrats to Apple's record time but I like my filesystems like I like my Toyota, reliable. [0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs/refs-overview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs...
- csydas 9y ago
  It isn't the default version because currently it can't be booted from. ReFS is a pure storage-style File System, and it's been full of headaches since release for those trying to use it as such. Comparing it to APFS isn't really reasonable as they're meaning to accomplish two different goals both systems. (Keep in mind, some of the bugs that ReFS had included silent corruption on files over 2 TB, which is kind of important for even the upper-end of the small business spectrum when it comes to data. [1] Even with that many technical previews and idling in beta for many iterations, they missed a pretty big show-stopper for ReFS, which has no built in volume repair since it's not supposed to break. (To clarify, there is Integrity Streams, but it's more that if you still see corruption with Integrity Streams running, MS has no more tools in its kit to assist) I get what you're saying, you don't want to watch a FileSystem do the 200 meter, you wanna see it's averages across several marathons, and I agree. However, what is important to take from such an install base is that so far the reports have been embarrassing implementations of stuff around the filesystem, not the filesystem itself not doing what it should. The fact that users aren't howling about data silently corrupting or extreme system slowdowns is a fairly good portend thus far, Apple's sloppiness on the surrounding code not-withstanding. APFS being stable doesn't excuse the rest of Apple's mistakes, but I would say separate the two; it's pretty clear APFS was a pretty important project for them, and it's clear where their attention was. [1] - https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2017/01/30/windows-server-2016-data-deduplication-users-please-install-kb3216755/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2017/01/30/windo...
lloeki 9y ago
> with almost zero incidents. Sparse files are hopelessly broken, prompting Docker for Mac to roll back to qcow2 when using APFS[0] (HFS+ sparse files are fine). [0]: https://docs.docker.com/docker-for-mac/release-notes/#docker-community-edition-17120-ce-mac55-2018-02-27 https://docs.docker.com/docker-for-mac/release-notes/#docker... EDIT: reference
- vvhn 9y ago
  HFS+ sparse files - now that’s a contradiction in terms.
  - lloeki 9y ago
    HFS+ sparse images, sorry (not quite the same as sparse files, but here DfM uses sparse files are used to create a raw image, so I wanted to lift some possible confusion, and tripped on)