Apple Seeds Second macOS High Sierra 10.13.1 Beta to Developers and Public Beta Testers

[Martyimac]

I hope the 10.13.1 release comes out soon, been waiting on it to upgrade to High Sierra after all the bug reports on 10.13.0.

For those who have taken the plunge, do you recommend upgrade or full hard drive wipe/reinstall?

This is NOT a recommendation it's just what I have done on my 2015 13"rMBP. I did a complete erase and reformat of the drive back to HFS+ and gone back to El Cap due to bugs that I encountered. Interestingly enough, the reinstalled El Cap is MUCH faster than HS was on this machine. YMMV!!!

 

[thadoggfather]

how is this on nTB over 10.13.0

worth it?

 

[ajfahey]

[doublepost=1507885425][/doublepost]"macOS High Sierra is a major update that introduces APFS" .... sure, but APFS is really a half-baked product.

APFS might set the framework for the future, but as it shipped in High Sierra, it is not a complete file system. APFS does not work with TimeMachine, software RAID (bootable), Fusion drives or even rotational drives for that matter. Future updates will really need to focus on getting the file system correct and ironing out the (many) bugs.

First time I've seen anyone acknowledge that AFPS is not supported on Time Machine.a

Hey Apple, please do a better job of providing errata like that in your release notes. Saves a lot of us wasting our time troubleshooting a problem with no solution.

 

[Paul A Jackson]

First time I've seen anyone acknowledge that AFPS is not supported on Time Machine.a

Hey Apple, please do a better job of providing errata like that in your release notes. Saves a lot of us wasting our time troubleshooting a problem with no solution.

Unfortunately the post you quoted was misleading and your post even more so for others.

Time Machine works just fine from APFS Macs, onto HFS+ disks - both USB and network attached storage - and vice versa.

The limitation - if it can be called that, rather than design - is that Time Machine does not currently support APFS on the backup volumes.

Why though should this be a big issue? Backup storage needs to be reliable first and foremost. For most of those using Time Machine, speed is almost certainly not the main priority. And converting terabytes of HFS+ to APFS would be time consuming and carry some risk of corruption.

Besides, what proportion of Mac Time Machine users' total backup capacity is currently on SSD? A single digit percentage at most?

 

[macrophone]

It would be amazing if bug has gone...FileVault enabled?

Yes, I have FileVault enabled my man, of course.

 

[chucker23n1]

Unfortunately the post you quoted was misleading and your post even more so for others.

Time Machine works just fine from APFS Macs, onto HFS+ disks - both USB and network attached storage - and vice versa.

The limitation - if it can be called that, rather than design - is that Time Machine does not currently support APFS on the backup volumes.

Why though should this be a big issue? Backup storage needs to be reliable first and foremost. For most of those using Time Machine, speed is almost certainly not the main priority. And converting terabytes of HFS+ to APFS would be time consuming and carry some risk of corruption.

Besides, what proportion of Mac Time Machine users' total backup capacity is currently on SSD? A single digit percentage at most?

While APFS is designed for SSDs first and foremost, another design goal is increased reliability. You got copy-on-write instead of the mere metadata journaling in recent HFS+ versions.

Plus, particularly useful for Time Machine, there's snapshots. Mobile Time Machine / local snapshots have already been moved to take advantage of this. Presumably, they want to do the same with the remote part of Time Machine as well, eventually. They just haven't gotten around to it, which isn't a big deal, but in the long run they probably want to.