Is APFS safe?

[MacBH928]

I still didn't upgrade to APFS but I believe next upgrade to Mojave is forced on SSD systems. I just want to ask those who has the APFS, is it stable? Should I worry about any files being lost? Any reason to stay or the old Extended Journaled? Do you feel its any better or worse?

 

[flowrider]

It's been working fine for me for months now.

Lou

 

[Dr_Charles_Forbin]

Agreed. The only problem you'll likely run into that you lose the ability to clone the disk. I used to clone my disk to an external drive using Disk Utility but that vanished with APFS. I worked with Apple on it but I dont think I ever got a satisfactory answer back from Engineering.

 

[Ritsuka]

You should backup your files if you want them to be safe. A single copy of a file is not the best definition of "safe".

 

[Dr_Charles_Forbin]

Of course I back them up via Time Machine😀 I liked having a copy not dependent on a file backup.

 

[flowrider]

I clone my APFS discs with SuperDuper - No Problem.

Lou

 

[Dr_Charles_Forbin]

I’

I clone my APFS discs with SuperDuper - No Problem.

Lou

Thanks - I’ll check that out

 

[MacBH928]

I clone my APFS discs with SuperDuper - No Problem.

Lou

are they bootable?

 

[Peadogie]

...The only problem you'll likely run into that you lose the ability to clone the disk. I used to clone my disk to an external drive using Disk Utility but that vanished with APFS....

Interesting, I just used DU to clone ("Restore") a bootable drive from my MBP's drive to an external SSD (Lacie/Samsung).
I'm running Catalina Beta.

 

[BrianBaughn]

Just booted a new top-of-the-line MBP from a Carbon Copy Cloner clone. Of course, the clone partition has to be APFS and you have to allow external media booting in "Startup Security Utility".

 

[flowrider]

are they bootable?

Yes!

Lou

 

[MacBH928]

Just booted a new top-of-the-line MBP from a Carbon Copy Cloner clone. Of course, the clone partition has to be APFS and you have to allow external media booting in "Startup Security Utility".

does the external drive have to be SSD, or can it be HDD and APFS formatted?

 

[BrianBaughn]

does the external drive have to be SSD, or can it be HDD and APFS formatted?

This one was a spinner drive with three partitions and only one of them APFS.

 

[mj_]

Define "safe".

Has it been tested over and over again over the years, on different hardware and in various scenarios? No.
Has it been analyzed and thoroughly torture-tested by an independent third party? No.
Has it been around long enough to make any viable statements regarding its long-term sustainability and stability? No.
Has it been actively tempered with by professionals in order to figure out how to repair and restore it, and has that process been documented? Not to my knowledge.
Is it safe enough to store your cat videos on? Probably yes.

Personally, I don't trust APFS yet. It hasn't been around long enough for me to take the plunge, and I prefer to keep all my business-critical data on HFS+ instead of APFS. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't really give you a choice anymore. Mojave will still run HFS+-formatted drives but you won't be able to install any updates ever because Apple took steps to actively prevent that from working (Why, you ask? Simple. Because: Apple!). Catalina won't even boot and run from HFS+ anymore because it keeps the operating system on a separate write-protected volume, a feature which requires APFS. Basically, you have the choice between staying on High Sierra (which already force-converted all SSDs during initial setup unless you specifically started the installer manually with a special option) or biting the bullet.

 

[cmaier]

are they bootable?

I clone with carbon copy cloner. Bootable.

 

[TheIntruder]

Define "safe".

Has it been tested over and over again over the years, on different hardware and in various scenarios? No.
Has it been analyzed and thoroughly torture-tested by an independent third party? No.
Has it been around long enough to make any viable statements regarding its long-term sustainability and stability? No.
Has it been actively tempered with by professionals in order to figure out how to repair and restore it, and has that process been documented? Not to my knowledge.
Is it safe enough to store your cat videos on? Probably yes.

Personally, I don't trust APFS yet. It hasn't been around long enough for me to take the plunge, and I prefer to keep all my business-critical data on HFS+ instead of APFS. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't really give you a choice anymore. Mojave will still run HFS+-formatted drives but you won't be able to install any updates ever because Apple took steps to actively prevent that from working (Why, you ask? Simple. Because: Apple!). Catalina won't even boot and run from HFS+ anymore because it keeps the operating system on a separate write-protected volume, a feature which requires APFS. Basically, you have the choice between staying on High Sierra (which already force-converted all SSDs during initial setup unless you specifically started the installer manually with a special option) or biting the bullet.

Every Apple device with iOS 10.3 and later is utilizing APFS. If you own such a device, you're already using it.

That's millions of users whose electronic lives and critical data rely on it, for more than two years. Unless I've missed something, there haven't been any reports of lost data or poor integrity due to it's adoption.

Is APFS perfect? No.

Could Apple have done a better job of documentation, and better allow developers to create tools for it? Certainly.

But it is still a work in progress, and barely 2.5 years old. HFS is the longest-lived of any Apple file system, with more than 30 years of maturity behind it, and in many respects, that shows when compared to APFS.

Developing a new file system is not for the feint of heart, and transitions don't occur overnight.

APFS is fundamentally sound, and safe for more than just cat videos.

 

[mj_]

Every Apple device with iOS 10.3 and later is utilizing APFS. If you own such a device, you're already using it.

That's millions of users whose electronic lives and critical data rely on it, for more than two years. Unless I've missed something, there haven't been any reports of lost data or poor integrity due to it's adoption.

True. However, you cannot really compare a simple single-task single-user single-input iOS device to a full-fledged personal computer running macOS. Macs are infinitely more complex than iPhones and iPads, and have a plethora of possibilities at their disposal to corrupt data on-the-fly. Think power failures in the middle of a cached write. Think crashes while in standby with open file handles. Think file locking due to competing simultaneously running background processes accessing the same inode. Think multi-user multi-tasking multi-processing versus single-user single-tasking multi-processing. Think sandboxing and jail versus open access. It's just not that simple, and while it's true that APFS on iOS has been rock solid so far this doesn't necessarily mean that APFS on macOS is (or will be).

Like you said yourself: 2.5 years is a very young age for a filesystem. Coming from the UNIX and enterprise Linux world I personally consider a filesystem somewhat solid after maybe 5-10 years of widespread use. APFS may seem structurally sound and solid but it simply hasn't been around long enough yet to make any assumptions. Call me old-fashioned and paranoid, but I've been around long enough to see my share of "whoops, that wasn't supposed to happen" on oh-so-amazing greatest-invention-since-sliced-bread filesystems. Once bitten, twice shy 😉

 

[MacBH928]

Every Apple device with iOS 10.3 and later is utilizing APFS. If you own such a device, you're already using it.

That's millions of users whose electronic lives and critical data rely on it, for more than two years. Unless I've missed something, there haven't been any reports of lost data or poor integrity due to it's adoption.

Is APFS perfect? No.

Could Apple have done a better job of documentation, and better allow developers to create tools for it? Certainly.

But it is still a work in progress, and barely 2.5 years old. HFS is the longest-lived of any Apple file system, with more than 30 years of maturity behind it, and in many respects, that shows when compared to APFS.

Developing a new file system is not for the feint of heart, and transitions don't occur overnight.

APFS is fundamentally sound, and safe for more than just cat videos.

but why did Apple change it if there was nothing wrong with HFS

 

[TheIntruder]

True. However, you cannot really compare a simple single-task single-user single-input iOS device to a full-fledged personal computer running macOS. Macs are infinitely more complex than iPhones and iPads, and have a plethora of possibilities at their disposal to corrupt data on-the-fly. Think power failures in the middle of a cached write. Think crashes while in standby with open file handles. Think file locking due to competing simultaneously running background processes accessing the same inode. Think multi-user multi-tasking multi-processing versus single-user single-tasking multi-processing. Think sandboxing and jail versus open access. It's just not that simple, and while it's true that APFS on iOS has been rock solid so far this doesn't necessarily mean that APFS on macOS is (or will be).

Like you said yourself: 2.5 years is a very young age for a filesystem. Coming from the UNIX and enterprise Linux world I personally consider a filesystem somewhat solid after maybe 5-10 years of widespread use. APFS may seem structurally sound and solid but it simply hasn't been around long enough yet to make any assumptions. Call me old-fashioned and paranoid, but I've been around long enough to see my share of "whoops, that wasn't supposed to happen" on oh-so-amazing greatest-invention-since-sliced-bread filesystems. Once bitten, twice shy 😉

Those are valid concerns, but I doubt anyone, including Apple, intends to use APFS for enterprise applications. That doesn't change the fact there are already millions of end users with APFS, and even under strictest interpretations, it is not "unsafe."

but why did Apple change it if there was nothing wrong with HFS

HFS was conceived in a time when floppy disks were still the norm, and Macs were equipped with 20MB hard drives.

It has evolved since, with new features and adapted for UNIX, but the fact remains the foundation was built with a different set of circumstances in mind, and technology has progressed.

APFS provides a modern base that is designed for flash storage, provides for features like encryption, as well as others to be added as it evolves.

Instead of addition upon addition to an old house to adapt to the way people now live, Apple has demolished that old house, and built a new one, albeit with some punch list items to be addressed. But it would not be accurate to call it uninhabitable, as the residents have already moved in.

 

[MacBH928]

Those are valid concerns, but I doubt anyone, including Apple, intends to use APFS for enterprise applications.

If Apple is not using their own iOS and MacOS(APFS) for their enterprise, what do they use then? It would be very embarrassing to see Apple running Linux system on the non-server side.

 

[TheIntruder]

If Apple is not using their own iOS and MacOS(APFS) for their enterprise, what do they use then? It would be very embarrassing to see Apple running Linux system on the non-server side.

Apple eats its own dog food. But using the right tool for the job doesn't always mean that it does.