Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #101773 > unrolled thread

New file system ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-04 03:08 -0500
    Re: New file system ? Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2017-03-04 08:23 +0000
    Re: New file system ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-04 21:44 +1300
      Re: New file system ? Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2017-03-04 13:46 +0000
      Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-04 14:29 +0000
      Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-04 13:31 -0500
        Re: New file system ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-05 12:31 +1300
          Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-05 13:03 -0500
            Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-05 18:24 +0000
            Re: New file system ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-07 12:52 +1300
              Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-06 23:51 -0500
                Re: New file system ? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2017-03-06 22:56 -0700
                  Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-07 15:51 +0000
                Re: New file system ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-07 20:05 +1300
                  Re: New file system ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-07 09:30 +0000
                    Re: New file system ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-07 23:40 +1300
                      Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-07 15:23 -0500
                        Re: New file system ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-07 15:29 -0500
                        Re: New file system ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-08 10:01 +1300
                        Re: New file system ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-07 21:53 +0000
                        Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-07 21:58 +0000
                          Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-07 17:27 -0500
                            Re: New file system ? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-03-07 14:43 -0800
                            Re: New file system ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-08 11:58 +1300
                            Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-07 23:01 +0000
                              Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-07 23:53 +0000
                              Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-08 19:41 -0500
                                Re: New file system ? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-03-08 16:43 -0800
                                Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-09 00:44 +0000
                                Re: New file system ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-09 14:37 +1300
                                  Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-08 21:07 -0500
                                  Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-08 21:09 -0500
                                    Re: New file system ? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-03-08 18:10 -0800
                                      Re: New file system ? michaelunowho@gmail.com - 2017-03-19 13:24 -0700
                                    Re: New file system ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-09 16:16 +1300
                            Re: New file system ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-08 06:48 +0000
                  Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-07 15:17 -0500
                    Re: New file system ? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-03-07 12:22 -0800
                    Re: New file system ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-07 15:24 -0500
                      Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-07 15:33 -0500
                        Re: New file system ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-07 15:35 -0500
                        Re: New file system ? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-03-07 12:35 -0800
                          Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-07 15:42 -0500
                            Re: New file system ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-07 15:48 -0500
                            Re: New file system ? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-03-07 12:53 -0800
                        Re: New file system ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-07 15:47 -0500
                        Re: New file system ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-07 21:51 +0000
                        Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-07 22:03 +0000
                    Re: New file system ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-07 21:51 +0000
                    Re: New file system ? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2017-03-07 15:00 -0700
                      Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-07 17:30 -0500
                        Re: New file system ? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-03-07 14:43 -0800
                          Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-07 23:01 +0000
                        Re: New file system ? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2017-03-07 17:04 -0700
                Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-07 15:53 +0000
            Re: New file system ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-07 09:18 +0000
        Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-05 00:24 +0000
        Re: New file system ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-05 00:55 +0000
          Re: New file system ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-04 19:59 -0500
            Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-05 02:34 +0000
              Re: New file system ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-04 22:13 -0500
                Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-05 06:03 +0000
                  Re: New file system ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-05 02:34 -0500
                    Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-05 14:51 +0000
            Re: New file system ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-05 07:16 +0000
              Re: New file system ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-05 02:34 -0500
                Re: New file system ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-05 13:05 -0500
                  Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-05 18:25 +0000
      Re: New file system ? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2017-03-05 13:07 -0700
        Re: New file system ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-05 22:18 -0500
    Re: New file system ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-04 14:25 +0000
    Re: New file system ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-04 15:10 +0000
    Re: New file system ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-04 11:05 -0500

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#101773 — New file system ?

A year or two or three ago, during a WWDC conference, Apple announced a
new file system, which would first be for non-system disk starting with
(IIRC El Capitan or Yosemite) and then rolling out for system disk.

I have not heard anything about it since then. Any news?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#101775

On 2017-03-04, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> A year or two or three ago, during a WWDC conference, Apple announced a
> new file system, which would first be for non-system disk starting with
> (IIRC El Capitan or Yosemite) and then rolling out for system disk.
>
> I have not heard anything about it since then. Any news?

https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/content/documentation/FileManagement/Conceptual/APFS_Guide/Introduction/Introduction.html

-- 
A spokesman said: “Would you like to buy some of my spokes?”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101776

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> A year or two or three ago, during a WWDC conference,

Try less than a year ago, at WWDC 2016.

> Apple announced a new file system, which would first be for non-system
> disk starting with (IIRC El Capitan or Yosemite) and then rolling out for
> system disk.

Sierra, not earlier systems. It is called APFS (Apple File System).

From memory but I haven't tried it myself yet: El Capitan recognises and
knows not to touch an APFS volume, but can't read or write it. Yosemite
and earlier don't recognise an APFS volume and offer to initialize it.

Sierra's implementation to date is not for mainstream use - it is a
preview which is available on a testing basis, requiring command line
tools to create and manage APFS volumes.

This Google search will help you educate yourself further.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:apple.com+apfs

From the developer introduction (first link):

"A Developer Preview of Apple File System is available in macOS Sierra.
Apple plans to release Apple File System as a bootable file system in
2017."

That suggests the next major version of macOS is a likely candidate for
a public release of feature complete APFS (with developer and public
betas up to three months prior to that), but it leaves open the
possibility that Sierra updates before then could include significant
APFS enhancements, even if it doesn't get as far as booting from APFS.

Ars Technica have run several articles about APFS, including
experimenting with it.

https://arstechnica.com/search/?ie=UTF-8&q=apfs

> I have not heard anything about it since then. Any news?

Various sites have been reporting that the imminent iOS 10.3 update will
be switching the iOS file system from HFS+ to APFS. That shows that at
least for a subset of features sufficient for iOS, APFS is ready for
public use.

macOS 10.12.4 is due at the same time, but there has NOT been any news
suggesting it will have significant APFS changes (nor for any other
minor versions of Sierra to date).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101777

On 04/03/2017 08:44, David Empson wrote:

> Various sites have been reporting that the imminent iOS 10.3 update will
> be switching the iOS file system from HFS+ to APFS.

Indeed, I've had on my iPad for the past couple of developer betas.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101780

On 2017-03-04, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> A year or two or three ago, during a WWDC conference,
>
> Try less than a year ago, at WWDC 2016.

He's claimed to have watched those in the past...

>> Apple announced a new file system, which would first be for non-system
>> disk starting with (IIRC El Capitan or Yosemite) and then rolling out for
>> system disk.
>
> This Google search will help you educate yourself further.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=site:apple.com+apfs
>
> From the developer introduction (first link):
>
> "A Developer Preview of Apple File System is available in macOS Sierra.
> Apple plans to release Apple File System as a bootable file system in
> 2017."
>
> That suggests the next major version of macOS is a likely candidate for
> a public release of feature complete APFS (with developer and public
> betas up to three months prior to that), but it leaves open the
> possibility that Sierra updates before then could include significant
> APFS enhancements, even if it doesn't get as far as booting from APFS.
>
> Ars Technica have run several articles about APFS, including
> experimenting with it.
>
> https://arstechnica.com/search/?ie=UTF-8&q=apfs

Ugh... So much *reading*! JF will never get through all of this! Can't
you just give him a Matrix-style implant of all of this information so
we don't have to transcribe it for him when he inevitably spews
ignorant misinformation about it?! Please? Think of the people!!

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101791

On 2017-03-04 03:44, David Empson wrote:

> "A Developer Preview of Apple File System is available in macOS Sierra.
> Apple plans to release Apple File System as a bootable file system in
> 2017."


Digital abandonned Spiralog when we all expected it to be in the next
release of VMS, Microsoft abandonned "last minute" its new file system
(was it originally for Vista?)


However, the Ars article about IOS 10.3 converting iPhones to APFS seems
to indicate it is much closer to reality than vapourware.

From a general release point of view, can Apple enable GUI formatting of
additional drives as HPFS if Time Machine doesn't yet work for it?

And if Time machine and other disk utilities work for HPFS, is there a
reason to still delay the system drive conversion to HPFS?

In other words, from a general release point of view, are we more likely
to see full HPFS support for all drives (with perhaps option to stay at
HFS) than to first enable it for additional drives ?

I could see ElCapitan and/or Sierra getting a patch to be able to read
HPFS drives and restore from those backups. (or perhaps even
read/write). (think USB key exchanges etc).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101806

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-03-04 03:44, David Empson wrote:
> 
> > "A Developer Preview of Apple File System is available in macOS Sierra.
> > Apple plans to release Apple File System as a bootable file system in
> > 2017."
> 
> 
> Digital abandonned Spiralog when we all expected it to be in the next
> release of VMS, Microsoft abandonned "last minute" its new file system
> (was it originally for Vista?)
> 
> 
> However, the Ars article about IOS 10.3 converting iPhones to APFS seems
> to indicate it is much closer to reality than vapourware.

Your usual FUD at work, I see.

As others noted, the iOS APFS conversion has already happened for those
running developer or public beta of iOS 10.3. Since downgrades are
seriously limited for iOS, we can be pretty certain Apple is committed
to releasing APFS.

> From a general release point of view, can Apple enable GUI formatting of
> additional drives as HPFS if Time Machine doesn't yet work for it?

Try learning to write "APFS". HPFS is an OS/2 thing which I used about
two decades ago.

I expect it would be straightforward for Apple to add APFS formatting
support to Disk Utility, since the command line tools already handle it.

The main reason it isn't there already is to limit exposure to the
unwashed masses who might expect more features or who don't read
instructions, and because it is still "use at your own risk" with the
possibility of a design change requiring existing APFS drives to be
erased (that is less likely now that iOS 10.3 is switching to APFS).

Time Machine support is one of the main reasons for delaying the
widespread release of APFS on the Mac compared to iOS, as TM requires
the use of new file system features, and it needs to be able to support
those features when they used on the source drive, as well as different
file systems between the source and backup drives.

> And if Time machine and other disk utilities work for HPFS, is there a
> reason to still delay the system drive conversion to HPFS?

Converting the system drive to APFS (once boot support and TM are
working) seems reasonable. Whether it happens automatically with no user
prompting is a harder question.

External drives (including some TM backups) shouldn't be converted
automatically, but Disk Utility could provide a manual conversion
mechanism. Consider for example plugging in an older Mac via target disk
mode - you wouldn't want to auto-convert a bootable drive containing an
older OS to APFS or the old Mac wouldn't boot any more. For data drives,
I'd also expect any such conversion to be under user control.

A TM backup drive only used on one computer (or a network backup for
that computer) is a more likely candidate for conversion to APFS, but
that could complicate restoring backups of older systems.

> In other words, from a general release point of view, are we more likely
> to see full HPFS support for all drives (with perhaps option to stay at
> HFS) than to first enable it for additional drives ?

The current non-boot drive support is for testing only. I expect APFS
will not be released for public use on the Mac until it supports boot
and Time Machine so it can be used on all drives.

> I could see ElCapitan and/or Sierra getting a patch to be able to read
> HPFS drives and restore from those backups. (or perhaps even
> read/write). (think USB key exchanges etc).

Sierra can already read and write APFS drives, and that includes reading
files from an APFS TM backup drive, assuming the folder hierarchy
doesn't change (if it did, that could be handled with a minor update). A
full system restore from an APFS TM backup using the recovery partition
would probably also work.

El Capitan might get an update to provide at least read support and
possibly write support, because there are a fair number of Mac models
which can run El Capitan but not Sierra and it would ease use of shared
drives which have been naively formatted as APFS without considering the
consequences.

I seriously doubt that would be extended to Yosemite and earlier.
Yosemite will stop getting security updates when macOS 10.13 is
released, and any Mac able to run Mountain Lion, Mavericks or Yosemite
can also run El Capitan.

The user could choose to format USB flash drives or other external
drives as HFS+ if they still need to exchange data with older systems. 
-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101838

On 2017-03-04 18:31, David Empson wrote:

> Your usual FUD at work, I see.

Not FUD. There have been many attempts at new file systems that stopped
at last minute. Not saying Apple will fail.  But just because it's been
released to developpers as beta doesn't mean that it will get widely
deployed to the masses.


Technically, Apple could roll APFS back just before IOS 10.3 comes out
to general public (with developpers having to use DFU to reload their
phones from scratch).  I am *not* implying the odds of it happening are
more than tiny.

IOS has the advantage of having a hidden file system, so no
customizations and having an app ecosystem that is forced to use the
documented APIs, so the oods of some important app bringing up a "show
stopper" problem are very low.


> I expect it would be straightforward for Apple to add APFS formatting
> support to Disk Utility, since the command line tools already handle it.

Not just formatting, but also disk integrity check. This is especially
important for a new file system where bugs may come out  once in the
wild. I suspect Apple may also provide a GUI way to convert frm HFS+ to
APFS.

> Time Machine support is one of the main reasons for delaying the
> widespread release of APFS on the Mac compared to iOS, 

I read also about fusion drives. And then there are the unknowns which
would crop up only through beta and perhaps even once in general
distribution.

> Converting the system drive to APFS (once boot support and TM are
> working) seems reasonable. Whether it happens automatically with no user
> prompting is a harder question.

The first release may give the option to upgrade the disk to APFS or
keep it at HFS+. But I suspect one or two releases forward, the OS may
require APFS so any upgrade of a system disk not yet at APFS would
include automatic conversion.


> External drives (including some TM backups) shouldn't be converted
> automatically,

I think this is one of the huge challenges. If APFS is superset of HFS+,
how can TM-APFS preserve all features of files when the backup target is
HFS+ store ?

VMS created sidecar files when storing its files to a UNIX store via
NFS. Thir preserved all the file attributes. (or as an option, NFS could
strip the rich attributes and stores files as stream of bytes on Unix
(and that meant converting record text files to stream text files for
instance). But when you did that, the files would no longer be identical
when they were brought back to VMS.

Apple had the "macbinary" format to store its "rich" format files with
resource forks onto file systems that didn't support that.

It would be simpler if Apple required backup targets for APFS Time
Machine to also be APFS.

But that causes an upgrade dilemma: when upgrading the system drive to
APFS,  do you preserve the old HFS+ backup drive so user could roll back
the upgrade, or do you invalidate that backup, reformat the backup drive
and create a totally new APFS native backup ?


My guess is that the backup will be left alone, but TM will be disabled
until the user is comfortable with upgrade at which point, he has to zap
the backup and start new native APFS backup from scratch.

Unless, of course, Apple files a way to convert an HFS+ backup to APFS
backup in whatever new format Time Machine uses. (not just the file
system, but the backup itself).


> mechanism. Consider for example plugging in an older Mac via target disk
> mode - you wouldn't want to auto-convert a bootable drive containing an
> older OS to APFS or the old Mac wouldn't boot any more. 

External drives are no different from plugging in a USB. If the OS
recognizes the file system it automounts it. There is no reason to
reformat it. If Apple still supports FAT, it should be able to support
HFS+ for quite some time.



> The current non-boot drive support is for testing only. I expect APFS
> will not be released for public use on the Mac until it supports boot
> and Time Machine so it can be used on all drives.

I suspect at least one version will provide optional system drive
conversion for developpers, then optional system drive conversion for
general users, followed by automated conversion at time of upgrade. So
we're looking perhaps 2020 when it becomes "mandatory".

That is one thing Apple has to get right, not something that can be
rushed. Stories of rushing product out causing people to lose their data
could prove very damaging to Apple's computer business.

Hopefully marketing will have no say in when this gets released for os-x


> Sierra can already read and write APFS drives, and that includes reading
> files from an APFS TM backup drive, 

I thought TM was not supported for APFS ?


> El Capitan might get an update to provide at least read support and
> possibly write support, 

Is APFS support in Sierra just a file system extenmsion in
System/Library/FileSystems or is it more deeply integrated inside the OS
which I assume HFS+ is ?

> I seriously doubt that would be extended to Yosemite and earlier.
> Yosemite will stop getting security updates when macOS 10.13 is

When accessing via SMB, is the file system used by the server opaque to
the client? (would a Yosemite client accessing an SMB store on a AFPS
based server see a difference ?)

I could see Apple releasing the code you have on Sierra (basic access to
APFS) for Yosemite on the day 10.13 gets out as a last update.  If it is
implemented as a file system extemsion, it should be pretty easy or
Apple to make it work on Yosemite.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101840

On 2017-03-05, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-03-04 18:31, David Empson wrote:
>
>> Your usual FUD at work, I see.
>
> Not FUD.

Absolutely FUD.

> There have been many attempts at new file systems that stopped
> at last minute. Not saying Apple will fail.  But just because it's been
> released to developpers as beta doesn't mean that it will get widely
> deployed to the masses.

Wrong. Historically, the overwhelming majority of the features Apple
adds to developer releases get released to the public in release
versions. So going by the past that's *precisely* what it means. 

> Technically, Apple could roll APFS back

The world could end tomorrow too. Something tells me it won't.

> I am *not* implying the odds of it happening are more than tiny.

Ah. That must be why you are talking so much about it and arguing with
anyone who disagrees.

[remainder of FUDdish ignorance omitted]

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101890

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-03-04 18:31, David Empson wrote:
> 
> > Your usual FUD at work, I see.
> 
> Not FUD.

Yes it is. Wait until iOS 10.3 so we know whether or not APFS has been
released to the general public, rather than speculating about worst case
scenarios or repeating ancient history of other companies' failed
attempts to introduce new file systems.

> > I expect it would be straightforward for Apple to add APFS formatting
> > support to Disk Utility, since the command line tools already handle it.
> 
> Not just formatting, but also disk integrity check.

That's already in the command line tools, so easy to add to the GUI.

> This is especially important for a new file system where bugs may come out
> once in the wild. I suspect Apple may also provide a GUI way to convert
> frm HFS+ to APFS.

That appears to not be in the current macOS implementation but it would
be easy to add once Apple is ready, and easy to include in the GUI. iOS
10.3 is doing an in-place conversion.

> > Time Machine support is one of the main reasons for delaying the
> > widespread release of APFS on the Mac compared to iOS, 
> 
> I read also about fusion drives. And then there are the unknowns which
> would crop up only through beta and perhaps even once in general
> distribution.

Again, you're worrying about features that haven't even been documented
yet, let alone available for anyone outside Apple to test.

Debating timing or details of unreleased and undocumented features is
pointless. I've stated my opinion, you've stated yours, and I'm not
going to argue about things that are unknowable at this point. Most of
the rest of the post snipped.

> > Sierra can already read and write APFS drives, and that includes reading
> > files from an APFS TM backup drive, 
> 
> I thought TM was not supported for APFS ?

I was writing that on the assumption that a future APFS implementation
of Time Machine uses the same logical structure as current TM backup
drives (or any minor changes can be supported for read access in a
future Sierra update).

Sierra already supports reading APFS volumes. Therefore a Time Machine
backup drive which happens to use APFS can be read by Sierra, e.g. to
restore selected files.

> > El Capitan might get an update to provide at least read support and
> > possibly write support, 
> 
> Is APFS support in Sierra just a file system extenmsion in
> System/Library/FileSystems or is it more deeply integrated inside the OS
> which I assume HFS+ is ?

I haven't looked into how deeply file systems are implemented in macOS,
but there are ".fs" packages for both APFS and HFS(+) in
/System/Library/Filesystems.

> > I seriously doubt that would be extended to Yosemite and earlier.
> > Yosemite will stop getting security updates when macOS 10.13 is
> 
> When accessing via SMB, is the file system used by the server opaque to
> the client? (would a Yosemite client accessing an SMB store on a AFPS
> based server see a difference ?)

The file sharing protocol presents an abstracted view of the server file
system, so a server using APFS would still be compatible with clients
running older OS X versions.

There may be some details which older clients can't use, but things like
snapshots would be outside the scope of a network client anyway, and
clones could be managed transparently by the server if the file sharing
protocol has commands like "copy file".

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101892

On 2017-03-06 18:52, David Empson wrote:

> That appears to not be in the current macOS implementation but it would
> be easy to add once Apple is ready, and easy to include in the GUI. iOS
> 10.3 is doing an in-place conversion.

Ability to convert volumes on-demand will be important since an upgrade
would only touch the system disk so the user would have to choose to
convert other volumes to APFS later. (and not all volumes could be
visible at time of upgrade). (and you certaintly don't want the upgrade
procedure to chaneg your pre-upgrade backup.)

Obviously, Apple has the code to do this during the upgrade, so it can
re-use the code.  But it will have to quiesce the target drive, stop any
process that has files opened on it so it can be dismounted for processing.


APFS is still a GUID partition, right? So the installer can boot from a
small partition and convert the system disk without anything running on
it.  But for a user-requested conversion of other drives, quiescing the
drive will be needed.


> Again, you're worrying about features that haven't even been documented
> yet, let alone available for anyone outside Apple to test.

Fusion drives have been implemented in OS-X and were mentioned as some
of the stuff not yet ready for APFS. (on OS-X, are various levels of
RAID including basic disk mirroring implemented at the file system level
or at the disk IO level ?

> Debating timing or details of unreleased and undocumented features is
> pointless. 

But the statement was made that APFS might be expected in the next
release of OS-X/MacOS. If so, then it is extending current beta to
general population, or having the complete implementation rolled out.

Does Apple still make macs with fusion drives or are they now all SSD?


> I was writing that on the assumption that a future APFS implementation
> of Time Machine uses the same logical structure as current TM backup

When I had watched the presentation, they noted the snapshot features.
This can be state of the art for a file system to take a backup (the
reading of all files based on atomic snapsot of the disk), but there may
be huge advantages for the TM backup destination as well.  So TM may
very well see a totally different implementation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101893

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Does Apple still make macs with fusion drives or are they now all SSD?

It took me maybe 20 seconds to find this: 

<http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac?product=MK442LL/A&step=config#>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101926

On 2017-03-07, Neill Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> Does Apple still make macs with fusion drives or are they now all SSD?
>
> It took me maybe 20 seconds to find this: 
>
><http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac?product=MK442LL/A&step=config#>

Don't bother. He doesn't read.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101894

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-03-06 18:52, David Empson wrote:
> 
> > That appears to not be in the current macOS implementation but it would
> > be easy to add once Apple is ready, and easy to include in the GUI. iOS
> > 10.3 is doing an in-place conversion.
> 
> Ability to convert volumes on-demand [...]

Enough with the speculation already. Read the Apple documentation I
linked via a Google search up-thread.

https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/FileManagement/Conceptual/APFS_Guide/FAQ/FAQ.html

[begin quote]

Upgrading

How do I upgrade to Apple File System?

Apple will offer nondestructive in-place upgrades from HFS+ to APFS for
all boot volumes when Apple File System ships in 2017. Tools will be
available to convert external volumes from HFS+ to APFS format.

[end quote]

> > Again, you're worrying about features that haven't even been documented
> > yet, let alone available for anyone outside Apple to test.
> 
> Fusion drives have been implemented in OS-X and were mentioned as some
> of the stuff not yet ready for APFS.

Yes, and how APFS will implement Fusion drives is not documented, so I'm
not interested in debating speculation about how it might work.

> (on OS-X, are various levels of RAID including basic disk mirroring
> implemented at the file system level or at the disk IO level ?

Fusion drives have nothing to do with RAID. That feature is currently
implemented via Core Storage as a logical volume spanning two physical
volumes.

> > Debating timing or details of unreleased and undocumented features is
> > pointless. 
> 
> But the statement was made that APFS might be expected in the next
> release of OS-X/MacOS.

Apple said they are planning a release in 2017, which might turn out to
be the next major version of macOS, or a later minor version of Sierra.

In either case, there would be developer and public betas of the fully
featured APFS.

We don't know yet which one Apple is planning. We will definitely know
more during WWDC (June) if not before then.

Until we know the timing and more details about the remaining features,
there is no point debating what features older OS versions might get.

> If so, then it is extending current beta to general population, or having
> the complete implementation rolled out.

The general population can already use the current preview of APFS in
Sierra, as long as they don't mind using command line tools to create an
APFS volume.

> Does Apple still make macs with fusion drives or are they now all SSD?

You can answer that question yourself by looking at the desktop models
on the Apple online store.

> > I was writing that on the assumption that a future APFS implementation
> > of Time Machine uses the same logical structure as current TM backup
> 
> When I had watched the presentation, they noted the snapshot features.
> This can be state of the art for a file system to take a backup (the
> reading of all files based on atomic snapsot of the disk), but there may
> be huge advantages for the TM backup destination as well.  So TM may
> very well see a totally different implementation.

I was explaining how it could work already if TM backups do NOT have any
structure changes. If there are changes, we can talk about the
implications once we know more about it.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101900

In message <1n2j4hk.1hrvglz1anuqovN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Yes, and how APFS will implement Fusion drives is not documented, so I'm
> not interested in debating speculation about how it might work.

Isn't APFS moving to a "pool" model where a single volume can span
multiple drives and support multiple file systems?

> Fusion drives have nothing to do with RAID. That feature is currently
> implemented via Core Storage as a logical volume spanning two physical
> volumes.

I think that every volume in APFS is a logical volume and it may
comprise part of a single drive, or even a share space of a single drive,
or span multiple drives.

> Apple said they are planning a release in 2017, which might turn out to
> be the next major version of macOS, or a later minor version of Sierra.

And I forgot they specifically said they planned to release it as a
BOOTABLE file system in 2017. I suppose they could count iOS, but it
sounds like they fully intend for Macs to boot it this year.

> We don't know yet which one Apple is planning. We will definitely know
> more during WWDC (June) if not before then.

Yep, WWDC should be a feast for file system nerds.

> Until we know the timing and more details about the remaining features,
> there is no point debating what features older OS versions might get.

I am pretty sure that 10.11 will get APFS and that no other OS will.
Since 10.11 did not obsolete any hardware it is sensible for Apple to
set it as the "You must be this tall to ride" bar.

-- 
It was easy to be a vegetarian by day. It was preventing yourself from
becoming a humanitarian at night that took the real effort.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101902

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1n2j4hk.1hrvglz1anuqovN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > Yes, and how APFS will implement Fusion drives is not documented, so I'm
> > not interested in debating speculation about how it might work.
> 
> Isn't APFS moving to a "pool" model where a single volume can span
> multiple drives and support multiple file systems?

I don't recall seeing anything explaining that yet. The WWDC video
mentioned the "APFS Container" in the context of the space sharing
feature, but only shows it within a single physical volume. Fusion
drives are only mentioned twice: once in the list of file system
variants and features APFS will support, and later as a "not yet
available" feature.

It would make sense if the container can span multiple physical volumes,
because an APFS volume can be split into multiple fragments within the
container, interleaved with other APFS volumes. In a Fusion drive, those
fragments could be on different physical volumes.

> > Fusion drives have nothing to do with RAID. That feature is currently
> > implemented via Core Storage as a logical volume spanning two physical
> > volumes.
> 
> I think that every volume in APFS is a logical volume and it may
> comprise part of a single drive, or even a share space of a single drive,
> or span multiple drives.
> 
> > Apple said they are planning a release in 2017, which might turn out to
> > be the next major version of macOS, or a later minor version of Sierra.
> 
> And I forgot they specifically said they planned to release it as a
> BOOTABLE file system in 2017. I suppose they could count iOS, but it
> sounds like they fully intend for Macs to boot it this year.

Yes, that seems to be their plan.

> > We don't know yet which one Apple is planning. We will definitely know
> > more during WWDC (June) if not before then.
> 
> Yep, WWDC should be a feast for file system nerds.
> 
> > Until we know the timing and more details about the remaining features,
> > there is no point debating what features older OS versions might get.
> 
> I am pretty sure that 10.11 will get APFS and that no other OS will.
> Since 10.11 did not obsolete any hardware it is sensible for Apple to
> set it as the "You must be this tall to ride" bar.

Especially because 10.12 raised the bar. Support in 10.11 would open up
APFS to a wider range of models.

A potential catch is none of those models have AES instructions in the
CPU, but that is just a performance question and then only if encryption
is used. (There are also several 2009-2012 Mac models which don't have
AES instructions but can run 10.12, so APFS cannot require AES
instructions.)

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101973

On 2017-03-07 05:40, David Empson wrote:

> A potential catch is none of those models have AES instructions in the
> CPU, but that is just a performance question and then only if encryption
> is used. 


in IOS, the user is not give any option to encrypt or not. I belive it
is up to the application to specify if its files are to be encrypted or not.


Will OS-X be an "all or nothing" aproach where all files are encrypted
individually (with same principle of double keys as on IOS now) ? Or
could one leave disk unencrypted but each App can then decide to encrypt
or not ? (would make for interesting UI in the Settings).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101980

In article <58bf16d2$0$1355$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> in IOS, the user is not give any option to encrypt or not. I belive it
> is up to the application to specify if its files are to be encrypted or not.

everything is encrypted on ios.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#102002

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-03-07 05:40, David Empson wrote:
> 
> > A potential catch is none of those models have AES instructions in the
> > CPU, but that is just a performance question and then only if encryption
> > is used. 
> 
> in IOS, the user is not give any option to encrypt or not. I belive it
> is up to the application to specify if its files are to be encrypted or not.

The entire storage is encrypted, but there are multiple class keys with
varying levels of access. Applications can choose which class to use for
each file, which results in different encryption keys for files in
different classes.

> Will OS-X be an "all or nothing" aproach where all files are encrypted
> individually (with same principle of double keys as on IOS now) ? Or
> could one leave disk unencrypted but each App can then decide to encrypt
> or not ? (would make for interesting UI in the Settings).

We don't know yet what options future macOS versions will offer, but
APFS is able to support existing FileVault-like full disk encryption,
and existing iOS-like individual file encryption with multiple keys, as
well as a new per-extent encryption method which could allow different
encryption keys to be used for parts of files.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#102011

In message <58bf16d2$0$1355$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-03-07 05:40, David Empson wrote:

>> A potential catch is none of those models have AES instructions in the
>> CPU, but that is just a performance question and then only if encryption
>> is used. 


> in IOS, the user is not give any option to encrypt or not. I belive it
> is up to the application to specify if its files are to be encrypted or not.

As usual, you are wrong. Entirely wrong. 100% wrong. Could not possibly
be more wronger. Wrongest, even.

-- 
Competent? How are we going to compete with that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web