will APFS be better than ZFS?

>>60096585
Anything would be better than ZFS

can't possibly be any worse than HFS+ which is all that matters

>>60096585
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.

hfs is better than zfs.
it's not horrible as y'all say. just unbloated, minimalist, and a bit archaic.

>>60096585
> Apple competent at making FSs, ever

made me smile, OP.

>>60096662
>intentionally designed to avoid case sensitivity
>good

>>60096585
lack of cluster, RAID, checking integrity of data,
lack of enterprise usage
bait/10

>>60096746
the original mac os didnt need case sensitivity. also nice meme chevrons

>>60096786
>enterprise usage
>for a phone

Are you stupid?

>>60096585
It's by Apple what do you think? Of course it's going to be a pile of shit.

>>60096996
It's going to be used on desktop too dumbass

The better question is: Will it be better than ext4 or NTFS?

>>60097072
Better than ext4? Yes.
Better than ntfs? Fuck no.

>>60097082
NTFS is barely better than Fat32 as is, it won't be harder to make something better than it.

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")

>>60097146
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

>>60096746
>>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?

>>60097352
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

>>60096786
>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.

Not bait but what's wrong with HFS+? Besides the whole Torvaldis couldn't find the case sensitive option thing I mean.

>>60097922
slow and ancient

>>60097922
>what's wrong with HFS+?

Everything, literally everything. You think NTFS is fucked up? Wait until you learn about HFS+

>>60097082
made me giggle

>>60097943

I guess with ssd I've never noticed it.

>>60097953

Will look more into it I guess. All I can find are parrots of Linus' inability to go through format options.

>>60098233
https://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/12/

>>60098262

Thanks anon reading it now.