Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple should have stuck with ZFS years ago. I'll stay on El Capitain for a number of years because it works on most modern and previous Apple hardware.
I still wonder why they dropped that, maybe it didn't scale down for iOS or something
 
  • Like
Reactions: JosephAW
Would you please list at least one such feature?

I didn't want to bring this up, but I know quite a bit about computer hardware, server grade to. I can tell you that there's not even one such feature. ECC is basically the only differentiator.
im not arguing with you anymore enjoy your cheap memory in your mac and memory leaks while im having great peformance on micron memory without any memory leaks oh btw im talking a real experience here after replacing default memory with micron memory there is way less memory leaks ui lags and performance loss ... so go on enjoy your sierra ui lags and blame software on the cheap hynix dude... while im using the same os without lags, or without performance loss, freezings...
 
Lots of complaints from people who have never used a sparse image in their lives and will never be impacted by this bug.
Doesn't matter, I think the complaints are still valid, apple rolled out a filesystem that could potentially corrupt your data. filesystems need a level of confidence as its the keeper of your data, and now with this bug, that confidence has been impacted.
 
imo its hardware not software apple have been using cheap memories since tim cook
Ah yes. That must be why my Mac Mini, made a year before Jobs died, and which has Crucial RAM sticks, and which has flawlessly run every installed OS except Sierra, had a problem.

Please. Learn, then post. There are better ways to criticize Tim Cook than sounding indiscriminately ridiculous.
 
im not arguing with you anymore enjoy your cheap memory in your mac and memory leaks while im having great peformance on micron memory without any memory leaks oh btw im talking a real experience here after replacing default memory with micron memory there is way less memory leaks ui lags and performance loss ... so go on enjoy your sierra ui lags and blame software on the cheap hynix dude while im using the same os without lags memory leaks and try to figure out whats wrong with your mac...

My sides are in orbit. Thanks for the laugh.

I was just talking from my IT work background and IT education. I'm glad you enjoy your Mac. Mine works flawlessly as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacsRuleOthersDrool
I too would be surprised. First, APFS formats only on drives that are SSD. It won't format on Fusion drives, nor will it format on standard platters. So the only people who will encounter this bug are those who have an all-SSD drive who try to create a sparse disk image on it.

No, it also happens if you take a HFS+ drive and put an APFS disk image inside. The physical volume format is irrelevant.

Yes, it's a serious bug (which Apple has patched for the next update)

Have they?
 
You realize that ECC memory actually reduces performance? This feature is to prevent bitrot at the COST of performance.

No consumer product uses them. It's like expecting your Tesla to come with military grade tires just because it's expensive.

Indeed.

Sadly what we have here is another person who doesn't have a clear understanding of the issue from which they complain about. Apple didn't just arbitrarily pick a particular RAM specification, they are constrained by the ability of the CPU to support it within the confirms of the architecture. And, since it's a laptop, that further limits Apple's choices in RAM types.

But hey, why let ignorance of a subject get in the way of a good grumble, right? :D
 



Apple's APFS file system included in macOS High Sierra suffers from a disk image vulnerability that in certain circumstances can lead to data loss, according to the creator of Carbon Copy Cloner.

In a blog post last Thursday, software developer Mike Bombich explained that he had uncovered the data writing flaw in the Apple File System, or APFS, through his regular work with "sparse" disk images.

macos-volumes-icones-800x277.jpg

For those who aren't familiar with the term, a sparse disk image is basically a file that macOS mounts on the desktop and treats as if it was a physically attached drive with a classic disk volume structure. The flexibility of sparse disk images means they are commonly used in the course of performing backup and disk cloning operations, hence Bombich's extensive experience with them.
Two related problems are identified by Bombich, above. The first is that the free space on the APFS-formatted sparse disk image doesn't update as it should when the free space on the underlying physical host disk is reduced. The second problem is the lack of error reports when write requests fail to dynamically grow the disk image, resulting in data being "written" into a void. Bombich tracks both bugs back to macOS's background "diskimages-helper" application service, which he has since reported to Apple.

Bombich's video demonstrating the APFS bug

Every installation of High Sierra converts the existing file system to APFS, which is optimized for modern storage systems like solid-state drives. However, as Bombich notes, ordinary APFS volumes like SSD startup disks are not affected by the problem described above, so the vast majority of users won't be affected by it - the flaw is most applicable when making backups to network volumes. Bombich says Carbon Copy Cloner will not support AFPS-formatted sparse disk images until Apple resolves the issue.

The APFS flaw follows the discovery of another bug in Apple's operating systems that received extensive coverage last week. That bug is induced by sending a specific character in the Indian language Telugu, which causes certain apps on iPhones, iPads, and Macs to freeze up and become unresponsive. The Telugu character bug has already been fixed in Apple's upcoming iOS 11.3 and macOS 10.13.4 software updates.

Article Link: APFS Bug in macOS High Sierra Can Cause Data Loss When Writing to Disk Images
[doublepost=1519047282][/doublepost]Thanks Mike! You're a great example of a professional programmer and a independant mind. You and your software have always been great! Wish more companies could follow your lead.
 
Ah yes. That must be why my Mac Mini, made a year before Jobs died, and which has Crucial RAM sticks, and which has flawlessly run every installed OS except Sierra, had a problem.

Please. Learn, then post. There are better ways to criticize Tim Cook than sounding indiscriminately ridiculous.

lol i was trying to help you pal i experienced the same memory leaks but after they changed logicboard and this one had micron modules instead of hynix not experiencing any memory leaks or im not noticing performance loss & freezings anymore...so changing hardware and using better memory did the trick for me...
 
This is why I always keep a Carbon Copy Cloner full backup. CCC has always been tested thoroughly and every time I've relied on a backup it's my CCC backup I use. I still keep a Time Machine one because it's easy but it's the CCC one I truly TRUST.
+1 for this strategy. I’m very happy with SuperDuper, but same idea. File recovery via TM and complete bootable backup via SD (or CCC). This bug isn’t actually the reason we do this but smart protection against catastrophe is critical. As an added layer of protection, I keep the backup offsite. Never know.
 
My sides are in orbit. Thanks for the laugh.

I was just talking from my IT work background and IT education. I'm glad you enjoy your Mac. Mine works flawlessly as well.
look i will not talk with you again there are few sheeples here i see that.. the good and expensive memory modules are stable and can take more heat than the others one of the worst problem with macbook pro is overheating right because its thin case and if you use cheap memory in this hot environment it will cause performance loss plus when software experience memory leaks it will cause freezings and other issues... better memory can take more heat ..thats one example for you...
 
Last edited:
look i will not talk with you again there are few sheeples here i get that not my problem first the good and expensive memory modules are stable and can take more heat than the others the problems with macbook pro is overheating right because its thin case and if you use cheap memory in this hot environment it will cause performance loss plus when software experience memory leaks it will cause freezings and other issues... better memory and expensive memory can take more heat .. heat proof or other hardware features thats one example for you...

Just to clarify: expensive memory ≠ good/better memory
 
Just to clarify: expensive memory ≠ good/better memory
thats correct server grade memory is expensive and expensive > cheap period if wanna argue on that you are lunatic..
havent heard of cheap and better hardware...quick question for you i7 is it expensive than i3 yes or no? which one is better....
 
I didn't deploy btrfs on my Linux boxes because I didn't feel like taking a chance with a filesystem that was brand new. Apple forced this on those who upgraded. How is this not reality?

To be honest, I feel like you're trolling a bit here because my opinion doesn't align with yours.Say what?

I wonder if you've thought this comment through. "Apple forced this on those who upgraded." Think about it. Do you think they forced all the other changes in the new software on those who upgraded? Don't upgrade if you don't want change. And either don't expect perfection in new code or learn to live with disappointment.
 
Doesn't matter, I think the complaints are still valid, apple rolled out a filesystem that could potentially corrupt your data. filesystems need a level of confidence as its the keeper of your data, and now with this bug, that confidence has been impacted.

This isn't about the filesystem itself. It's about a specific type of disk image within a specific filesystem within an OS. It's a niche error, which is why it took someone who deals in a very niche area to even come across it.
[doublepost=1519048619][/doublepost]
In isolation, yes. Given the current trend of Apple software development hiccups on OSX, surely concerning.

The recent releases have no significant increase in reported bugs than any other macOS and iOS releases. What has SIGNIFICANTLY increased recently is Mac Rumors and others reporting of every little issue (these posts mean more money for them so they're going to publish every one and the more they build it up into a huge deal, the more people will talk and the more revenue they make so they have a big benefit to make even the smallest issue seem life-ending). You feel like there are more problems in recent releases because they're being reported on more frequently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwintx
This thread is chock full of the trolling, more so than usual. This is the first APFS bug that I can remember reading about, as others have mentioned there are a few but are edge cases. The smoothness of Apple's roll out APFS across Mac and iOS, when you consider the sheer scale and complexity of what they were doing and all the things that COULD have gone wrong, is insane. This is a bug, bugs happen in software at every level, it will probably be fixed soon. Grow up.
Yes what people forget. Yet every time someone comes across a bug it’s front page news on every rum0r site and then it turns into a general Apple/Tim Cook bashing thread.
 
I still wonder why they dropped that, maybe it didn't scale down for iOS or something

That could be part of it. ZFS is mostly used in server environments and thereby is mostly tuned to that scenario — for example, its deduplication eats a lot of RAM. (OTOH, APFS doesn't have deduplication at all…)

Meanwhile, Apple uses APFS all the way down to the Apple Watch, which is quite resource-starved.

Another issue is licensing.

Yet another is that there isn't really any major vendor driving ZFS any more — Sun is gone, and Oracle already has btrfs. So if you're going to be the biggest user of a file system by a long shot (i.e., Apple), why not just roll your own while you're at it?
 
Speaking of problems with APFS - I had to revert (using CCC actually) all the systems I had upgraded to High Sierra back to the old Mac OS Extended format due to the whole "not releasing disk space" bug which certainly should have been taken care of before High Sierra went GM. I have numerous users on limited-space SSD equipped MacBook Airs and MacBook Pros (education environment - staff laptops), so they know how to manage disk-space by offloading old files to network storage to free disk-space, and it just wasn't working; leaving users unable to work on large projects (i.e. importing large video-files for use in iMovie, etc.) The systems they deleted 30gb or 40gb of files from would throw up the "not enough free space" errors when trying to copy new files to the drive, even though those were generally far smaller than the space that should have just been freed-up. Unbelievable. Oh, wait, unbelievable for the old Apple we knew and loved. Totally believable, even expected, from the new Apple.

However, the upshot is that the systems running High Sierra on Mac OS Extended also seem to be far less buggy overall than when they were running on APFS, so if you are experiencing tons of High Sierra unreliability and have the know-how & time, you might try cloning the system, reformatting the drive back to GUID and Mac OS Extended (journaled) and then cloning everything back. Seemed to help me, but that's an admittedly limited-data set (around a dozen system to date).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bacillus
thats correct server grade memory is expensive and expensive > cheap period if wanna argue on that you are lunatic..
havent heard of cheap and better hardware...quick question for you i7 is it expensive than i3 yes or no? which one is better....

LOL, I won't argue at all
If you choose to believe that just because something is expensive it is inherently better than something that is less expensive, that is your choice
 
LOL, I won't argue at all
If you choose to believe that just because something is expensive it is inherently better than something that is less expensive, that is your choice

there are some exceptions of course but i was speaking in general... usually its wiser to go with the expensive one...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.