GUYS
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
GUYS!
FAG32
>>55063485
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/content/documentation/FileManagement/Conceptual/APFS_Guide/Introduction/Introduction.html
>Apple File System provides several new features, including optimization for Flash/SSD storage, copy-on-write metadata, space sharing, cloning of files and directories, snapshots, fast directory sizing, and atomic safe-save primitives.
neat
>Current Limitations
>As a developer preview of this technology, there are currently several limitations:
>Startup Disk: APFS volumes cannot currently be used as a startup disk.
>Case Sensitivity: Filenames are currently case-sensitive only.
>Time Machine: Time Machine backups are not currently supported.
>FileVault: APFS volumes cannot currently be encrypted using FileVault.
>Fusion Drive: Fusion Drives cannot currently use APFS.
So you can't even use it for "macOS", and it's pointless to use on a storage drive.
>>55063614
Man, you can't even USE non-beta macOS for at least 3 more months.
>APFS
APPle is just laying the groundwork so that they can all everything an App.
First they acronym it as APFS, and then the next one will be called and stylized as APPfs.
Everything is becoming an App.
>>55063678
> he didn't defrag his app
>>55063705
I your computer running slow?
Download more app
>>55063734
app app?, APP APP APP!
App?
App app
app app app
app app
app app app app
app ?
app app!
GOYS!
>>55064098
The plural of goy is goyim
>>55063485
Interesting. I was wondering when someone would develop a new fs to target SSDs.
The quicker they hurry up and ditch that horrific piece of shit HFS+ the better.
>they didn't get ZFS
I bet it's gonna vaporware faster than you can say ReFS
>implying /g/ actually knows anything about file systems beyond spouting that HFS+ is bad
>>55064697
This is Apple, not Microsoft. They don't make lofty promises and then break them in a year or two.
>>55064697
kek.
Actually >>55064240 is right. Why applel didn't moved to an already existing FS, and contributing for it ? That would cost less and they would have something probably better than what they can make.
>>55064738
>Why applel didn't moved to an already existing FS, and contributing for it ? That would cost less and they would have something probably better than what they can make.
not-invented-here syndrome, obsessive desire for control.
>>55063485
who names their kid Nob Hill?
>>55063485
>inb4 it's stable before btrfs
>>55064738
What would be the point of using Apple if you weren't locked into the ecosystem?
>>55064761
>not-invented-here syndrome, obsessive desire for control.
If they keep going with this mentality they'll never gain market share and be relevant. Are they aware of that ?
>>55064738
They did have a ZFS project underway, even with a couple of open source releases, but a) it couldn't store the extended metadata used by OSX in a space efficient manner, and b) Apple wanted to pay Sun for patent insurance related to ZFS and Sun refused. Presumably, that's when Apple started working on this one.
>>55064855
They do say in their docs that they're going to document and publish the on-disk format when it's released. And there's a section on Open Source where they specifically don't promise to open source it. But if they do, it might be a good chance for linux to pick it up, considering that btrfs is still slow as shit, zfs has linux licensing issues, and ext4 is basically hfs+ with b-trees.
>>55063485
>proprietary fs
Goddammit Apple, you're not good at filesystems. Just fucking drop the NIH syndrome bullshit and go with something that's already proven itself.
>>55064240
They tried moving to ZFS years ago during development of 10.5, dropped that shit once Oracle bought Sun.
>>55065193
it's open-source
>>55064197
>F2FS
>>55063614
it's still not officially released
>>55063614
>Case Sensitivity: Filenames are currently case-sensitive only.
They make that sound like a bad thing
>>55065172
>Apple wanted to pay Sun for patent insurance related to ZFS and Sun refused.
This shit is so depressing
>they specifically don't promise to open source it. But if they do, it might be a good chance for linux to pick it up, considering that btrfs is still slow as shit,
BTRFS seems fix-able, just the feel I get while using it.
>>55065891
for the typical end user it's a pain
>>55065891
It sort of is, not in the sense of case sensitivity in general being bad, but that a lot of OS X applications require case insensitivity.
>>55065279
If anything, it's MS with the NIH syndrome.
>>55066156
Microsoft is definitely bad, but Apple's got a pretty big issue with it as well
>>55063678
>Everything is becoming an App.
App is short for Apple Program, ie. a program meant to run on an Apple made device.
>>55064738
They are doing this so it is more difficult for non-mac software to interface with macs.
It'll be nothing else but a copy of some existing free file system, with some apple proprietary crap in it.
>>55066205
Are we all running in an Apple simulation? Is this why one of the colors in their default color scheme is blue?
>>55066215
Yeah, AFP and SMB are just going to stop working right? Oh wait
>>55063485
linux kernel support when
>>55063485
>Nob Hill
Kek. This is all I took away from reading that
>>55065891
Valve and Adobe hire bad programmers. This is why it's a con.
>>55065891
Since most Mac disks are using case-insensitive HLS, converting to case-sensitive is going to be a fucking nightmare. Pajeet and Rahul programming , son. Same exact reason why MS skipped Windows 9.
>>55065957
The typical end-user would be completely unaffected, as they only open files with the mouse through GUIs anyway.
>>55065905
>BTRFS seems fix-able
I dunno. The main reason I still don't use it is because copy-on-write for file contents is kinda retarded for the many use-cases of random-access files. I don't really ever see such a filesystem becoming mainstream.
>>55064197
There are like a dozen of them already. Do Apple fanboys only see tech news when they are released by Apple?
>Fuck man our file system sucks
>I know we will make a new one instead of implementing an existing one with the kinks already worked out
Fucken Apple cut this shit out.
>>55066205
>App is short for Apple Program
ITT: People with no idea about file systems discuss file systems
>>55066675
>ITT: People with no idea about _____ discuss _____
Literally all of 4chan.
>>55066700
Sadly, that is true. However, in this case it's especially transparent, as all most of the people here seem to know is that HFS+ sucks because everybody says so. Maybe they vaguely remember Linus Torvalds saying something like that once.
>>55063485
Yet another reason to purchase the new Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display.
>>55065303
ZFS's performance was also a joke desu.
>>55066615
Literally what file system could they have used? ZFS is out of the question since Oracle/Sun denied them patent insurance.
>>55063485
Gee another shitty proprietary file system, despite all the good filesystems that exist currently. How exciting.
>>55066805
Some freetard who unironically thinks that ext4 is viable filesystem, probably.
>>55066807
>just assuming it's proprietary
>>55066816
>EXT4
A major upgrade from HFS+ and more than likely better than this shit Apple's making
>>55064152
>>55066828
>just assuming it's proprietary
It's Apple, this is the company that makes proprietary connectors just to gouge it's customers.
Lol Nob Hill
>>55066828
Still shit. Not worth it.
THANK YOU BASED APPLE
HFS+ IS KILL
>>55066805
OpenZFS, ZFS itself is now under the CDDL license. Just the name "ZFS" is trademarked.
>>55066933
It's still slow as shit as a file system and only viable for maybe servers.
Can someone post the dmg?
>>55066918
You kidding me? EXT4 would be a massive upgrade from HFS+. Fuck, I'd even be happy if they just went back to UFS (why'd they ever take it away?)
>>55066963
>Fuck, I'd even be happy if they just went back to UFS
Confirmed for having no idea what you're talking about.
>>55067040
It was better than HFS+. I've lost files to that shit before, meanwhile nothing's been wrong on the UFS formatted partitions I've had for years.
>>55066537
you can turn CoW off (selectively or entirely)
>>55067071
I know, but going around and turning it off manually where it seems like a good idea is ugly, and turning it off entirely seems to largely negate the point of using btrfs to begin with. In that case I can just stay with ext4/xfs.
Also, I do mind the ZFS/btrfs approach of managing volumes in the filesystem layer. While I do realize the advantages they derive from it, it's worth much more to have a system for each task that does only one thing but does it well. If I'm having hardware trouble or whatever, being able to debug it properly at the proper level without having to delve deep into btrfs on-disk structures is worth far more than being able to turn on replication on a per-file basis.
