MacOS Catalina has a dedicated system volume now

Discussion in 'macOS Catalina (10.15)' started by STOCK411, Jun 3, 2019.

  1. toru173 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    #2
    Interesting! I’ve just installed, so haven’t had a chance to poke around much. This explains the shift to APFS as it’s far easier to create and move volumes non-destructively
     
  2. FNH15 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
  3. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #4
    How does it appear in Finder? Do you still see folders like /System or are they hidden away now?
     
  4. DeanLubaki macrumors 6502a

    DeanLubaki

    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Location:
    Toronto
    #5
    It appears in the Finder like before.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. zorinlynx macrumors 603

    zorinlynx

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #6
    Can you still override Gatekeeper with right-click + open?
     
  6. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #7
    Interesting. I suppose /System is now linked to the new volume somehow. I'll have to give it a go on my spare machine at some point :)
     
  7. Fried Chicken macrumors 6502

    Fried Chicken

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    #8
    Can I still edit my System Directory if I so choose?

    Every time I install MacOS I change the volume clicker back to the one to the true Mac OS X volume clicker.
     
  8. redheeler macrumors 604

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #9
    Yes, the system partition is writable with SIP disabled.
     
  9. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    That's a plus, but I do wonder if that will break other apps. In the business world, separating the OS and data and apps has always been the best approach.
     
  10. Fishrrman macrumors P6

    Fishrrman

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #11
    Hmmmm..... lemmmmeeeesssseeee here....

    Since back to my earliest days of Mac'ing (late 80's), I've partitioned my drives so that the "System files" resided in their own partition.

    I've ALWAYS kept my data on a separate volume (partition).
    This made it fast and easy to backup my data, and if anything went wrong with the "system partition", the data partition was usually still fine.

    And for years others told me what I was doing was unnecessary.

    Well, well, well...!
    Looks like Apple itself has finally come around to "my way of doing it".
    That is -- segregate the OS files into their own "space".
    Call it "a partition", or call it "a container", or call it whatever you like ("a rose by any other name...")
    That's what they're doing.

    Who had it right...?
     
  11. zorinlynx macrumors 603

    zorinlynx

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #12
    To be fair, in the old days doing this required you to partition the storage space so you'd dedicated space to the system, and unused space in the system partition wouldn't be available for data.

    APFS has made it possible to do this without this waste of space. So your idea had merit, it was just inefficient to implement. Now that it is, Apple has done it.

    I hope the read-only system partition is identical across all systems and has absolutely no local configuration data. This would make it really easy to restore a machine to factory state; just nuke and recreate the data partition!
     
  12. a2jack macrumors regular

    a2jack

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    #13
    Always wondered why they kept throwing everything in one pot. a2
     
  13. dsemf macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2014
    #14
    This might not be possible. Are /bin and /sbin part of the system volume or is it just /System?

    DS
     
  14. Brad9893 macrumors 6502

    Brad9893

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Location:
    Hiding Under the Genius Bar
    #15
    Can someone explain why a read-only volume is needed for the System when we already have SIP, which protects that particular location (among others) from tampering/unauthorized modifications? Based on what @redheeler mentioned above, the System volume can be modified with SIP turned off, so what is the point of just putting it into a new volume? Does it confer additional benefits?
     
  15. Ritsuka macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    #16
    Maybe it's easier to implement. Instead of hacking things around to protect some folders you just use the standard way to make a read-only volume.
     
  16. zorinlynx macrumors 603

    zorinlynx

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #17
    I hope it is; it would be silly if they went out of the way to make the installation model similar to iOS and not do it the same way.

    When you do "erase all content and settings" in iOS, the system nukes the data partition on the devices, throws away the decryption key, and creates a fresh one. That's how it can do it so quickly.
     
  17. KoolAid-Drink macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #18
    I wonder how this works for someone who has existing system and data partitions already separated. The way my configuration works is, I have one partition dedicated to macOS, my user folder (nothing of importance stored there), and all applications. The separate data partition consists of all my data, documents, etc. I think they're both containers under the same main drive, using AFPS. If I upgrade to Catalina this fall, how will the installer handle that?
     
  18. DeanLubaki macrumors 6502a

    DeanLubaki

    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Location:
    Toronto
    #19
    Breaks OneDrive
     
  19. Mr. Retrofire macrumors 603

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl/en
    #20
    Separate volumes make backup, cloning, HDD/SSD upgrades and recovery more simple. So I agree with you.
     
  20. weup togo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2016
    #21
    My guess is that the fact it is still editable with SIP disabled is a bug. The benefit is that updates & upgrades become much easier when you have a precisely known set of bits to modify, without having to worry about any sort of alterations behind your back. This is more about simplicity for Apple's deployment of new updates than about security.
     
  21. chabig macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #22
    Apple says it’s read-only. You say it’s writeable. Those statements are at odds. I’m not sure which is more likely correct.
     
  22. toru173, Jun 4, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2019

    toru173 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    #23
    For anyone else looking in to this, Apple call the feature ROSV in the OSInstaller (there is a lot of references to “ROSV Install"). Trying to install manually without the ‘Data’ volume in the APFS container seems to only install the system stuff, and the resulting install crashes when trying to init userland.

    It looks like Catalina on HFS+ is a no-go until we get this sorted
     
  23. Shirasaki macrumors G3

    Shirasaki

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    #24
    If MacOS has its own partition and read-only, many BSD or Unix programs might outright break and not work. Unless MacOS has some sort of virtual system folder that program can read/write, I am not sure about the compatibility here.
    Based on this info, I am pretty sure Apple is now laying the foundation to ditch intel processor and much of the UNIX thing in the near future.
     
  24. 44Edward macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    #25
    Will this work on an iMac late 2012. All previous versions of 10, caused iMac to run super slow and would not revognize my hard drives nor my Ethernet connection.
     

Share This Page

96 June 3, 2019