151–160 of 406 posts
I read the link and have a pretty good understanding about how computers and file systems work but can someone "explain like I'm a decently intelligent programmer" what is different about this file system? Thanks you.
Google them and see what they do well, and you might get some ideas.
> It is optimized for Flash/SSD storage and features strong encryption, copy-on-write metadata, space sharing, cloning for files and directories, snapshots, fast directory sizing, atomic safe-save primitives, and improved file system fundamentals. \o/ Hallelujah, something modern!
Will they deploy it case insensitive, still?
> Case Sensitivity: Filenames are currently case-sensitive only.
First thought: they have seen the light!
A moment later: wait...they consider this a "limitation", and it's only "currently" the case. So maybe they're going to perpetuate the brain-damage anyway.
Sigh.
> It is optimized for Flash/SSD storage and features strong encryption, copy-on-write metadata, space sharing, cloning for files and directories, snapshots, fast directory sizing, atomic safe-save primitives, and improved file system fundamentals. \o/ Hallelujah, something modern!
I was excited to until I read the limitations section. Can't be used as the startup disk and doesn't work with time machine. Hopefully this with change in the next macOs release.
> Flash / SSD Optimization I.e., a "unique copy-on-write design" > Space Sharing Basically, ZFS datasets. > Snapshots If those can be sent: Finally Time Machine done right. > The AFP protocol is deprecated and cannot be used to share APFS formatted volumes. Interesting. > An open source implementation is not available at this time. Apple plans to document and publish the APFS volume format when Apple File System is r…
> The AFP protocol is deprecated and cannot be used to share APFS formatted volumes. Interesting. That is really interesting. I recognised with El Capitan that it already defaults to SMB instead of AFP when you don't give a scheme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another reason is that ZFS just isn't fitting for Apple devices. It's memory hungry and energy hungry and has several limitations compared to HFS+ like not being able to be resized.
ZFS will be happy on a system with only 512MB of RAM, no matter how much storage it manages (assuming only 1 pool). It does need more RAM than UFS, but the amount is not notable unless we are talking about systems with 32MB of RAM. Being energy hungry relative to UFS and others is likely true due to things like checksum calculations and compression, but there is no way to implement these things without needing more c…
Not so true now - people have added encryption and compression instructions to CPUs. I'd be surprised if Apple couldn't ask Intel for a couple opcodes, and with the mobile platforms they do it anyway.
This is a huge feature. I have no idea why Apple didn't include this in their keynote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the end-user they could prevent duplicate different-cased file names in the UI layer (the Finder), instead of the file system. That would be a more appropriate place for it anyway.
And then some code using Unix APIs would create two files whose names differ only in case and the UI layer would choke. This is why spray-on usability is bad.