I took a peek into APFS a bit ago [1] because I (stupidly) yanked a usb SSD before it was unmounted and corrupted it. Reading the documentation, it seems to have many "cool" features which just aren't fully exposed/utilized in the OS, and there is a lack of API tooling.
replyFor example: it is copy-on-write, and my corruption happened in the superblock checkpoint. There is no built-in command in Disk Utility to "mount" an older checkpoint (and accepting a small amount of dataloss). Also the "First Aid" command allegedly runs volume repair top-down when it is recommended to do it inside-out.
Claude was super helpful at walking me through the APFS CLI tool to do some more advanced stuff that’s not in the GUI.
replyIt might not be the fastest, but at least it supports setting/keeping file creation time - unlike the clusterf*ck we still have on basically all Linux filesystems unfortunately
replyYou're blaming the wrong thing.
replyIt's the Linux kernel that deliberately does not provide user land a way to change file creation times.
Meanwhile XNU/macOS does.
Is APFS that much slower than ZFS or btrfs (more comparable Linux file systems) or just ext4? Btrfs is noticeably slower than ext4, but at least all the Mac and Linux file systems are way faster than file operations on Windows :)
replyHere's a very recent video benchmarking APFS vs ZFS, btrfs, and XFS+: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wVNFaFDIn8
replyJust watched that after I got home from work. I was pleasantly surprised with how in-depth it was. Thanks for sharing it! It does seem like the worst issues he was seeing had to do with parallel IO performance, which is exacerbated by the agent development use case, so for sequential file creation/deletion, APFS is bad but not horrible.
reply