Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

macOS' APFS File-System Performing Much Better Than The Dated HFS+

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • macOS' APFS File-System Performing Much Better Than The Dated HFS+

    Phoronix: macOS' APFS File-System Performing Much Better Than The Dated HFS+

    I'm currently running some macOS 10.13 vs. Linux benchmarks for publishing within the next day or two on Phoronix. But so far in my macOS 10.12 Sierra vs. macOS 10.13 High Sierra benchmarks, what has stood out the most is the file-system performance due to HFS+ file-systems automatically being converted to the Apple File-System (APFS)...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...HFS-Benchmarks

  • #2
    We'll see how these numbers compare to Linux shortly.
    Test Linux 4.12 and >= 4.13, please. When comes to Apple crap remains crap. Little better FS won't help. Furthermore:

    https://www.macobserver.com/analysis...ance-lags-hfs/
    Last edited by Pawlerson; 09-26-2017, 06:28 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post

      Test Linux 4.12 and >= 4.13, please. When comes to Apple crap remains crap. Little better FS won't help. Furthermore:

      https://www.macobserver.com/analysis...ance-lags-hfs/
      This article is like half a year old already.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post

        Test Linux 4.12 and >= 4.13, please. When comes to Apple crap remains crap. Little better FS won't help. Furthermore:

        https://www.macobserver.com/analysis...ance-lags-hfs/
        Time to get religious again, eh? To me, it looks like an improvement which is always nice.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post

          Test Linux 4.12 and >= 4.13, please. When comes to Apple crap remains crap. Little better FS won't help. Furthermore:

          https://www.macobserver.com/analysis...ance-lags-hfs/
          Out of curiosity, explain please just how Apple managed to get among top10 most worth companies in the world. While selling "crap" - as you defined it.
          It's net worth was couple odd billions over 750 back in May 2017.

          I am at loss. Either you are SERIOUSLY out of touch with what we fondly call "the reality", people on Earth have somehow been subjugated by Apple or you were just plain wrong - venting your pathetic Linux fanaticism yet again.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's kind of mindboggling that they're only now replacing HFS+, a more advanced version of the file system they introduced with the failed Apple III, with something better.

            Still, better late than never even thou I would have preferred that Apple had gone ahead and actually switched to ZFS like they originally planned a decade ago. However that was killed due a bout of good old fashion NIH syndrome spurred on first by a lawsuit over ZFS between Sun and NetApp, then the uncertainty caused by Oracle buying up Sun and finally a clash between Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs at the last moment (who rejected working with who depends on who you ask). Apple got so close to adding support that they even handed out discs with a working implementation to developers at the 2007 WWDC.
            Last edited by L_A_G; 09-26-2017, 07:47 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah. If HFS+ is an improved HFS, then ext4 is an improved ext.
              I do agree that HFS+ is pretty unreliable. This is why Disk Warrior is such a big thing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Michael, you’re saying that Blogbench writes are faster, but the graph is showing the opposite.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
                  It's kind of mindboggling that they're only now replacing HFS+, a more advanced version of the file system they introduced with the failed Apple III, with something better.

                  Still, better late than never even thou I would have preferred that Apple had gone ahead and actually switched to ZFS like they originally planned a decade ago. However that was killed due a bout of good old fashion NIH syndrome spurred on first by a lawsuit over ZFS between Sun and NetApp, then the uncertainty caused by Oracle buying up Sun and finally a clash between Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs at the last moment (who rejected working with who depends on who you ask). Apple got so close to adding support that they even handed out discs with a working implementation to developers at the 2007 WWDC.
                  You mean like Windows still uses NTFS introduced with NT 3.1 in 1993?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                    Out of curiosity, explain please just how Apple managed to get among top10 most worth companies in the world.
                    Most people I know have buying patterns about as complicated as: Ohh, Shiney!
                    Last edited by Darakus; 09-26-2017, 08:28 AM. Reason: typo

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X