5 ms·

They used to do something to this effect with older MacOS X updates by only transferring a bundle of the files, but at some point they just sliced the OS into g

by tomxor 3y ago

They used to do something to this effect with older MacOS X updates by only transferring a bundle of the files, but at some point they just sliced the OS into giant partitions and started sending the full file system image over the wire regardless of the actual changes. This wouldn't be such a wasteful idea had they used file system snapshot differential block transfer a la ZFS send. All I can guess is that they either think their customers are so rich they must all live in places with gigabit internet available, or they just don't care and everyone suffers. Either way it's a massive waste of time, resources and energy, just not theirs.

codetrotter 3y ago
> This wouldn't be such a wasteful idea had they used file system snapshot differential block transfer a la ZFS send. That would have been so epic. They should do that in FreeBSD. Take the macOS idea of having a separate protected partition for the base system, and combine that with the support for ZFS in FreeBSD to use ZFS snapshots to update the FreeBSD base OS, instead of having to run freebsd-update which applies a bunch of patches
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I don't really like that, because it would make it impossible to modify stuff that I want to modify. I moved to FreeBSD precisely because I wanted more control than Apple would give me (which is ever less of course). And freebsd-update works well, it can even validate files so you can see which have been manually changed. This is perfect for me, it's not a hard lock to what the provider decides but more of a suggestion.
jshier 3y ago
APFS can do snapshot transfers, that's how Time Machine works for APFS volumes. It may just not meet their goals for signed system volumes.
- hulitu 3y ago
  Better corrupted but safe, than compromized.
- tomxor 3y ago
  That's nice, but it's still no use for this purpose if it doesn't support differential block level transfer.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> All I can guess is that they either think their customers are so rich they must all live in places with gigabit internet available They resisted any kind of low data mode for a long time because their “vision” was unlimited, unmetered everything. Which is a nice vision. But not the reality for now.

by tomxor 3y ago

codetrotter 3y ago

> This wouldn't be such a wasteful idea had they used file system snapshot differential block transfer a la ZFS send. That would have been so epic. They should do that in FreeBSD. Take the macOS idea of having a separate protected partition for the base system, and combine that with the support for ZFS in FreeBSD to use ZFS snapshots to update the FreeBSD base OS, instead of having to run freebsd-update which applies a bunch of patches

wkat4242 3y ago
I don't really like that, because it would make it impossible to modify stuff that I want to modify. I moved to FreeBSD precisely because I wanted more control than Apple would give me (which is ever less of course). And freebsd-update works well, it can even validate files so you can see which have been manually changed. This is perfect for me, it's not a hard lock to what the provider decides but more of a suggestion.

jshier 3y ago

APFS can do snapshot transfers, that's how Time Machine works for APFS volumes. It may just not meet their goals for signed system volumes.

hulitu 3y ago
Better corrupted but safe, than compromized.
tomxor 3y ago
That's nice, but it's still no use for this purpose if it doesn't support differential block level transfer.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> All I can guess is that they either think their customers are so rich they must all live in places with gigabit internet available They resisted any kind of low data mode for a long time because their “vision” was unlimited, unmetered everything. Which is a nice vision. But not the reality for now.