...
Will APFS be better than ZFS?
Thomas Hill
Other urls found in this thread:
arstechnica.com
twitter.com
Connor Flores
Anything would be better than ZFS
Ethan Gonzalez
can't possibly be any worse than HFS+ which is all that matters
Connor Barnes
Better than HFS+? Yes, definitely.
Better than ZFS? Probably not, no checksums. (Which aren't needed on Apple hardware anyways)
Faster than ZFS? Yes, definitely.
Jaxon Torres
hfs is better than zfs.
it's not horrible as y'all say. just unbloated, minimalist, and a bit archaic.
Colton Russell
> Apple competent at making FSs, ever
made me smile, OP.
David Brown
>intentionally designed to avoid case sensitivity
>good
Brayden Torres
lack of cluster, RAID, checking integrity of data,
lack of enterprise usage
bait/10
Jordan Morris
the original mac os didnt need case sensitivity. also nice meme chevrons
Landon Myers
>enterprise usage
>for a phone
Are you stupid?
Noah Robinson
It's by Apple what do you think? Of course it's going to be a pile of shit.
Charles Davis
It's going to be used on desktop too dumbass
Isaiah Davis
The better question is: Will it be better than ext4 or NTFS?
Parker Clark
Better than ext4? Yes.
Better than ntfs? Fuck no.
Easton Sullivan
NTFS is barely better than Fat32 as is, it won't be harder to make something better than it.
Lincoln Stewart
I'm really curious about this:
>Encryption is clearly a core feature of APFS. This comes from diverse requirements from the various devices; for example, multiple keys within file systems on the iPhone, or per-user keys on laptops. I heard the term "innovative" quite a bit at WWDC, but here the term is aptly applied to APFS. It supports several different encryption choices for a file system:
>Unencrypted
>Single-key for metadata and user data
>Multi-key with different choices for metadata, files, and even sections of a file ("extents")
Jonathan Campbell
My inner cynic says, cross sign with Apple keys for "authorized recovery" aka TLAs don't like keys they don't have access to / CA access to.
But on paper this looks neat
Nolan Scott
>>intentionally designed to avoid case sensitivity
You know HFS+ supports case sensitive volumes, right?
And that nobody uses it because it breaks poorly coded apps?
Wyatt Campbell
Yes, I am aware that feature can be turned on. I'm also aware it breaks shit if so because of Apple's retarded decision making
Jayden Scott
>lack of cluster, RAID, checking integrity of data,
Clustering and RAID aren't filesystem level features, and it does have integrity checking, all metadata is checksummed and it uses copy-on-write for crash recovery.
>lack of enterprise usage
I'm not sure if you're just using a buzzword, or you're a total idiot.
Andrew Martinez
Not bait but what's wrong with HFS+? Besides the whole Torvaldis couldn't find the case sensitive option thing I mean.
Ayden Thomas
slow and ancient
Jaxson Hernandez
>what's wrong with HFS+?
Everything, literally everything. You think NTFS is fucked up? Wait until you learn about HFS+
Andrew Richardson
made me giggle
Thomas Davis
I guess with ssd I've never noticed it.
Will look more into it I guess. All I can find are parrots of Linus' inability to go through format options.
Adam Thompson
Thanks user reading it now.