12 ms·

One of the reasons I switched away from Macs was their file systems. I simply can’t trust them. The HFS volume storing my Time Machine backups got corrupted so

One of the reasons I switched away from Macs was their file systems. I simply can’t trust them. The HFS volume storing my Time Machine backups got corrupted so often that eventually I turned them off, because what was the point? I had high hopes for APFS but it turned out to be even worse due to the extra complexity of containers. On the other hand, since switching to Linux I can’t think of a single instance of file system corruption that wasn’t caused by me doing something stupid or a hardware problem. I just don’t have to worry about file systems on a daily basis anymore and I like it that way.

urthor 4y ago
Second this. I used a time machine backup to load my dotfiles and other settings from my personal laptop to a new work machine. Never, again. I was manually scripping ACL permissions from folder after folder, reinstalling Docker, all sorts of rubbish. The current set of Mac hardware is brilliant. Once Asahi Linux has the GPU and power management configuration, I'll hopefully never use a MacOS again unless work forces me to. Certainly I'll never buy a Mac laptop again after the current supply chain issues are gone in 3-5 years. Horrible experience as a power user. Linux power user features have come so far. The Linux desktop is so much better than 15 years ago it brings a tear to my eye.
xenonite 4y ago
For TimeMachine backups, the file system problem can be alleviated. A possible destination is a Linux/* based Samba server that accesses, e.g., a ZFS or ext4 file system.
- Tijdreiziger 4y ago
  NAS boxes (e.g. the ones from Synology) work great for this ever since Apple discontinued the Time Capsule. You can get a cheap box for €100-200, configure it easily via a GUI web interface, and it will work for years without having to touch it (if you turn automatic updates on). In fact, Apple even lists this option in their Time Machine documentation: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202784 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202784
  - ksec 4y ago
    Well you want BTRFS support at least, but Synology's kernel are stuck in the 3.x and 4.x era.
    - Tijdreiziger 4y ago
      Synology has been running Btrfs on their boxes for years. https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Which_Synology_NAS_models_support_the_Btrfs_file_system https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Which_Synolog...
      - ksec 4y ago
        My point is their BTRFS version are stuck in the 3.x and 4.x kernel era.
        Tijdreiziger 4y ago
        Which isn't great, but the point of such boxes is that you just use the GUI interface to configure it and don't worry about what's under the hood. SSH isn't even enabled by default (and most users probably never enable it).
- sgerenser 4y ago
  Time machine can only back up to HFS+ or APFS. When you back up to a Linux server, it creates an HFS+ (maybe APFS now?) formatted disk image then backs up to that. So ultimately if the FS was problematic, you’d have the same issue (just inside the disk image).
  - kennend3 4y ago
    I dont think this is the case. I use time machine to backup to a Ubuntu server's ZFS share. Time machine creates a folder for each machine [my first machine.sparsebundle], etc. I can navigate to the "sparsebundle" directory under linux and it is not an image. Works just fine. Edit: this is what is inside "mymachine.sparsebundle" 252G ./bands 35M ./mapped 252G .
    - sgerenser 4y ago
      That .sparsebundle folder is a sparse disk image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_image What you're seeing is the raw storage for that disk image. If you copied the whole thing to a Mac (or anything that understands MacOS disk images) you could mount it then you'd see the actual files. The filesystem of that mounted image would be HFS+.
dangus 4y ago
There have been better backup programs for Mac than Time Machine for years. I don't really think it's a reason to use or not use macOS on its own. I think the issue is Time Machine much more than the underlying file system. If you use Time Machine as a "convenience" backup instead of a critical file storage backup it does the job well. It's the fastest and simplest way to restore an exact image to a new computer, when it works. I don't think it's wise to depend on that type of local backup for critically important files in the first place when you've got free or trivially expensive higher reliability and durability services available (things like S3 and B2 or even just plain old consumer cloud storage that is professionally managed). E.g., my free tier Dropbox that I've kept miscellaneous important documents on for over a decade has never lost a thing, and it also stores the folder locally for an automatic second/third location on each of my systems. It's really brainless and consumer-friendly with reliability that I'd call "good enough for the layperson." I can't say the same thing about any of the local hardware I've put backups on, regardless of whether it was Time Machine or some other backup method.
- thedanbob 4y ago
  Time Machine was just the most visible/frequent symptom of the problem. I saw file system corruption many other times as well, and not all of it could even be repaired with macOS's built-in tools (but bizarrely, sometimes linux tools would succeed where Disk Utility failed). I remember spending an entire afternoon trying to repair a friend's iMac's root volume, and while I eventually succeeded, it took countless arcane commands only documented on StackOverflow executed in just the right sequence. I couldn't possibly replicate it. I agree, the problems with Time Machine are greater than the underlying file system. But the underlying file system was problematic enough on its own for me to never want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

urthor 4y ago

Second this. I used a time machine backup to load my dotfiles and other settings from my personal laptop to a new work machine. Never, again. I was manually scripping ACL permissions from folder after folder, reinstalling Docker, all sorts of rubbish. The current set of Mac hardware is brilliant. Once Asahi Linux has the GPU and power management configuration, I'll hopefully never use a MacOS again unless work forces me to. Certainly I'll never buy a Mac laptop again after the current supply chain issues are gone in 3-5 years. Horrible experience as a power user. Linux power user features have come so far. The Linux desktop is so much better than 15 years ago it brings a tear to my eye.

xenonite 4y ago

For TimeMachine backups, the file system problem can be alleviated. A possible destination is a Linux/* based Samba server that accesses, e.g., a ZFS or ext4 file system.

Tijdreiziger 4y ago
NAS boxes (e.g. the ones from Synology) work great for this ever since Apple discontinued the Time Capsule. You can get a cheap box for €100-200, configure it easily via a GUI web interface, and it will work for years without having to touch it (if you turn automatic updates on). In fact, Apple even lists this option in their Time Machine documentation: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202784 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202784
- ksec 4y ago
  Well you want BTRFS support at least, but Synology's kernel are stuck in the 3.x and 4.x era.
  - Tijdreiziger 4y ago
    Synology has been running Btrfs on their boxes for years. https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Which_Synology_NAS_models_support_the_Btrfs_file_system https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Which_Synolog...
    - ksec 4y ago
      My point is their BTRFS version are stuck in the 3.x and 4.x kernel era.
      - Tijdreiziger 4y ago
        Which isn't great, but the point of such boxes is that you just use the GUI interface to configure it and don't worry about what's under the hood. SSH isn't even enabled by default (and most users probably never enable it).
sgerenser 4y ago
Time machine can only back up to HFS+ or APFS. When you back up to a Linux server, it creates an HFS+ (maybe APFS now?) formatted disk image then backs up to that. So ultimately if the FS was problematic, you’d have the same issue (just inside the disk image).
- kennend3 4y ago
  I dont think this is the case. I use time machine to backup to a Ubuntu server's ZFS share. Time machine creates a folder for each machine [my first machine.sparsebundle], etc. I can navigate to the "sparsebundle" directory under linux and it is not an image. Works just fine. Edit: this is what is inside "mymachine.sparsebundle" 252G ./bands 35M ./mapped 252G .
  - sgerenser 4y ago
    That .sparsebundle folder is a sparse disk image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_image What you're seeing is the raw storage for that disk image. If you copied the whole thing to a Mac (or anything that understands MacOS disk images) you could mount it then you'd see the actual files. The filesystem of that mounted image would be HFS+.

dangus 4y ago

There have been better backup programs for Mac than Time Machine for years. I don't really think it's a reason to use or not use macOS on its own. I think the issue is Time Machine much more than the underlying file system. If you use Time Machine as a "convenience" backup instead of a critical file storage backup it does the job well. It's the fastest and simplest way to restore an exact image to a new computer, when it works. I don't think it's wise to depend on that type of local backup for critically important files in the first place when you've got free or trivially expensive higher reliability and durability services available (things like S3 and B2 or even just plain old consumer cloud storage that is professionally managed). E.g., my free tier Dropbox that I've kept miscellaneous important documents on for over a decade has never lost a thing, and it also stores the folder locally for an automatic second/third location on each of my systems. It's really brainless and consumer-friendly with reliability that I'd call "good enough for the layperson." I can't say the same thing about any of the local hardware I've put backups on, regardless of whether it was Time Machine or some other backup method.

thedanbob 4y ago
Time Machine was just the most visible/frequent symptom of the problem. I saw file system corruption many other times as well, and not all of it could even be repaired with macOS's built-in tools (but bizarrely, sometimes linux tools would succeed where Disk Utility failed). I remember spending an entire afternoon trying to repair a friend's iMac's root volume, and while I eventually succeeded, it took countless arcane commands only documented on StackOverflow executed in just the right sequence. I couldn't possibly replicate it. I agree, the problems with Time Machine are greater than the underlying file system. But the underlying file system was problematic enough on its own for me to never want to touch it with a ten foot pole.