Hi
Please explain what is the big deal about APFS? I don't see any but problems and crashes
Tc
Please explain what is the big deal about APFS? I don't see any but problems and crashes
Tc
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple File System (APFS) what is the big deal?
- Thread starter Xray50
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What is it that crashes and acts problematically for you? Unless you're using low-level file system applications that aren't updated for APFS, I doubt APFS is the reason for your problems.
We've had HFS+ for many, many years now, and it's not even written in an object-oriented language. It takes maybe 10x as long to add a feature to the HFS+ code than it would to APFS, and then that HFS+ format probably wouldn't be compatible with the older versions. APFS is extensible though, so if Apple finds a feature in 5 years that they want in the file system, as long as it isn't really fundamental, they can add it, and older systems will still be able to see and use the drive, though unless the drive has baked in drivers, that specific feature will then just be ignored.
HFS+ has also kinda been hacked up to allow the modern functions. (I'm looking at you Core Storage). Full Disk encryption for instance. That isn't supported by HFS+. Instead, Core Storage is put inside the HFS+ volume to manage it, because, as mentioned above, you can't really touch the HFS+ codebase.
Furthermore, APFS supports cool new technologies like Copy-on-write, which has the downside of fragmenting data more (hence APFS isn't advised to be used on HDDs), but the upside of allowing awesome functions like snapshots without using any extra space.
The entire file system is also written in 64-bit, which has numerous benefits, though mostly for future potential.
It also supports containerisation, which is one of the problems Core Storage tried to fix on top of HFS+. APFS is two parts, an APFS container, and an APFS volume. The container can be a full drive, part of a drive, or indeed span multiple drives, and your volumes can be numerous, and various sizes inside those containers, so instead of having to repartition your drive, you can make two volumes inside one APFS container, and they'll act as two independant partitions, but can dynamically shrink and enlarge themselves depending on needs.
There are many more differences, like atomic metadata operations that can save your computer from corrupted data! – I recommend watching this video for a lot of good details
https://blog.macsales.com/42819-video-presentation-taking-a-deep-dive-into-apples-apfs
We've had HFS+ for many, many years now, and it's not even written in an object-oriented language. It takes maybe 10x as long to add a feature to the HFS+ code than it would to APFS, and then that HFS+ format probably wouldn't be compatible with the older versions. APFS is extensible though, so if Apple finds a feature in 5 years that they want in the file system, as long as it isn't really fundamental, they can add it, and older systems will still be able to see and use the drive, though unless the drive has baked in drivers, that specific feature will then just be ignored.
HFS+ has also kinda been hacked up to allow the modern functions. (I'm looking at you Core Storage). Full Disk encryption for instance. That isn't supported by HFS+. Instead, Core Storage is put inside the HFS+ volume to manage it, because, as mentioned above, you can't really touch the HFS+ codebase.
Furthermore, APFS supports cool new technologies like Copy-on-write, which has the downside of fragmenting data more (hence APFS isn't advised to be used on HDDs), but the upside of allowing awesome functions like snapshots without using any extra space.
The entire file system is also written in 64-bit, which has numerous benefits, though mostly for future potential.
It also supports containerisation, which is one of the problems Core Storage tried to fix on top of HFS+. APFS is two parts, an APFS container, and an APFS volume. The container can be a full drive, part of a drive, or indeed span multiple drives, and your volumes can be numerous, and various sizes inside those containers, so instead of having to repartition your drive, you can make two volumes inside one APFS container, and they'll act as two independant partitions, but can dynamically shrink and enlarge themselves depending on needs.
There are many more differences, like atomic metadata operations that can save your computer from corrupted data! – I recommend watching this video for a lot of good details
https://blog.macsales.com/42819-video-presentation-taking-a-deep-dive-into-apples-apfs
If you've converted a spinning platter hard drive you should undo that immediately. APFS is not made for rotational drives, at least as long as copy-on-write can't be disabled. It's going to spread your data around on the disk too much after using it long enough and speed will plummet.
For your reading pleasure
HFS+ v. APFS: Which Apple file system is better?
Apple File System (APFS): What you need to know!
macOS 10.13 High Sierra: The Ars Technica review
Some pertinent info
In short, APFS is a new file system that replaces a nearly 20 year old file system that was not designed to handle the demands of modern computing. While Apple extended and updated HFS+, its clear that a newer FS would be better suited to work with the storage mediums like SSD, also products like the iPhone and macs. When HFS+ was released the iPhone was not even a glimmer in Steve's eye.
And in fact a feature like the iPad's drag-and-drop very heavily relies on copy-on-write, as whenever you drag a file to a different app, the file is copied into that other app, but of course with APFS it still only needs to access a single inode
OP wrote:
"Please explain what is the big deal about APFS? I don't see any but problems and crashes"
I sense that APFS is the source of a large portion of the problems that users are experiencing with High Sierra.
Not ready for primetime, in my opinion.
"Please explain what is the big deal about APFS? I don't see any but problems and crashes"
I sense that APFS is the source of a large portion of the problems that users are experiencing with High Sierra.
Not ready for primetime, in my opinion.
you sense that? and that means...? just curious. facts are generally more helpful than intuition. anyway, all good here...
What issues would that be?
And what about iOS that also runs on APFS? Since 10.3 so it needs to not just be "Oh, iOS 11 is so buggy".
Personally, my biggest issue with APFS is that Apple is forcing it down our throats whether we like it or not. There’s no easy way to opt out if you’re running High Sierra on an SSD-equipped Mac and quite frankly that pisses me off big time. I am very conservative when it comes to file systems and have been eyeing btrfs and ext4 suspiciously from a safe XFS enclosed distance - simply put I’ve seen too many file systems come and go and am very cautious with anything that is as low-level as a file system. And force-feeding us this change kept me from even remotely considering to think about maybe looking into possibly spending even a single thought on updating from Sierra for a long time. Unfortunately, I was forced to perform the update recently by a combination of one of my client’s very high and demanding security requirements and Apple’s inability (or rather unwillingness) to fix known gaping security issues in a timely manner on anything that isn’t their current latest and greatest OS. Ever since, I’ve been more adamant and religious with my backups than ever before. I haven’t experienced any APFS-specific issues but I don’t trust APFS just yet. Plus I don’t trust Apple to pull something like this off anymore.
One file system that runs across the entirety of its ecosystem.
We don’t see the immediate reason for this until Apple pulls back the curtain in a few years, but there’s a roadmap reason for an untertaking this huge.
Might surprise you but yes, I did read the entire thread. Do you even remotely understand my point? Do you have any idea what it means to replace a file system, aka the underpinnings of literally everything on a computer? Have you ever experienced data loss due to a buggy file system, because, oops, the developers missed something? I have, and that’s why I’ve become very cautious.
For you, it’s no big deal. It’s just a file system, right? Who cares, Apple surely knows what they’re doing. To me, it’s holy crap they’re touching the file system. If they mess this one up it’s not just root access to a computer, or reconfiguring App Store Access without providing the correct password. If they mess this up they mess up big time. And that’s why it’s a bad idea to force it down our throats whether we like/want it or not.
I am fully aware of that, thanks. That’s why I said “no easy way to opt out”. Plus, with every new update (like today’s 10.13.3) I would once again risk to be force-fed APFS. It’s too much of a hassle to go against the grain with Apple products so I decided to risk it against my will and better judgement. It’s why I have two separate backups now, not just one like I used to.
sure, and you could still be on os x panther. tech moves forward, and we go along for the ride, or stay at home watching picture tube tvs, and texting, slowly and painfully, on motorola razrs. apple surely doesn't always get it right, but they have a roadmap, and we're in the back seat. and the new file system is fine here, and will only get better over time.
Agreed it's big, and it's hard to tell exactly how well it works this early on, but so far it seems better and more robust than HFS+.Data recovery businesses say they get fewer Mac costumers since HS.
Also, Ext4 is really quite mature by now. btrFS is a different beast, but Ext4 is, as the name implies, building on from Ext2 and 3, and it's quite robust and mature.
[doublepost=1516763024][/doublepost]
Sure, but in that case I wouldn't say you're getting it forced down your throat. There is someone constantly saying "It would be really good if you jammed this down your mouth-hole", but the decision to stop it in your gob is all on you.
Having to go through a Terminal and recovery mode as only way to opt out is my definition of having it forced down my throat. Fearing that a subsequent update is going to convert my volumes to APFS without my explicit consent is my definition of having it forced down my throat. If there was an actual option to tick a checkbox which would disable APFS for good without having to fear it’ll get reenabled without my knowledge, that would be acceptable. But alas, there isn’t. I have to use an undocumented hack to keep the installer from converting my SSD to APFS against my will. If that’s not forcing it down my throat then I don’t know what is
Having to go through a Terminal and recovery mode as only way to opt out is my definition of having it forced down my throat. Fearing that a subsequent update is going to convert my volumes to APFS without my explicit consent is my definition of having it forced down my throat. If there was an actual option to tick a checkbox which would disable APFS for good without having to fear it’ll get reenabled without my knowledge, that would be acceptable. But alas, there isn’t. I have to use an undocumented hack to keep the installer from converting my SSD to APFS against my will. If that’s not forcing it down my throat then I don’t know what is
it's a file system, not an malignant virus. again, a file system. what exactly are you afraid of? & you're using an undocumented hack to avoid it? that would scare me more than... a new file system.
forced down your throat? no one made you move to HS. but, since it's a taste of what's next, by 10.14, we'll ALL be on APFS. take a breath, and move forward. it's the direction we all eventually move in...
We called it System 8.1. back then.
Apple also made some disk/file system changes between Leopard and Snow Leopard (10.5-10.6) which made it a fine idea to keep your 10.5 boot back-up on a different physical disk than 10.6.
Somewhere around 10.9(?) Apple started insisting on GUID vs Apple Partition Map for all boot disks.
APFS is yet another block that prevents older Macs from reading or using info from the newer Machines.
Networks can help with this, but my 10.5.11 Mini is not even allowed anywhere near my private wifi, much less the internet.
APFS likely has its advantages, but it does cut you off from the past in a big way.
There are often things in the past that you may not know you need for years.
Having to run 100 docs through email or a USB2 stick can ruin an otherwise perfectly good day; and I hate dragging hundreds of feet of Ethernet cable around.
------
There are other OS options, and companies devoted to making computers rather than phones and music stores. No evidence yet a viable new Mini is coming.
Last edited:
Fiskering,
have a little patience to try to understand his perception for a moment as you're being overly melodramatic.
OS X Panther is almost a decade past and HFS+ has been the underlying file system up to OSX Sierra. He's talking about a file system (as in the underlying way a computer writes files to blocks on a storage medium, not a file heirarchy like what we use in Finder. I think you know what he's meaning but just in case since file system has 2 different meanings.
Also not that he's listed 3 of the new file systems now used in Linux and Unix over the last 2 years so he has an in-depth understanding of file systems. There has been a few that have been a pure joke. We all know the on-going fun with HFS+ file permissions having to be checked and redone over and over during a year in OS X prior to High Sierra, many times this had to be done manually.
So give the guy a break and open your mind ... Apple should allow an easy GUI opt-out and allow security updates to the 1 year previous OS vs leaving it out that he's mentioned; even if not particularly specific what was left out. Nobody listens to understand anymore just for a quick reply. Try not to be that guy
Cheers and Peace.
I'm curious what's the deal with macOS HS and using Carbon Cloner Copy to an external HDD - eSATA - RAID1 with WD 1TB spinners as AFPS is not ment for spinners, at least for what I've understood so far. Will it blend...
Cheers
PS! Still on Mac OS X 10.10.5 ...
Cheers
PS! Still on Mac OS X 10.10.5 ...