>APFS >copy-on-write filesystem That's a good joke, Apple.

>>62188048
>leaf

>Lauren
You know the rules

>>62188121
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_(name)

>>62188149
>>62188149
this is my great swamp

File: 1483486735965.png (68KB, 420x909px)

68KB, 420x909px

>>62188048
Did you expect anything more from paste eaters?

>>62188454
i visualize it as that episode of Powerpuff Girl where there is that kid who eats glue

>>62188454
it's pretty funny that Apple now has a MUCH better OS than Linus! haha

>>62189016
Same

>>62188121
and so do I

>>62189056
(You)

>>62188454
autism rant. apfs fixes the shortcomings.

>>62191557
>hfs2.0

Explain to brainlets like me what this means OP

File: 1b04dc4a6e59.jpg (41KB, 792x792px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 792x792px

>>62188048
Not all COWs deduplicate my dude. ZFS doesn't by default, for example.

File: 98250013-5391-4b90-94ff-3ca9bb33a9dd.jpg (52KB, 622x505px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 622x505px

>>62191602
Basically these operations that would've been easy to optimise for space (and I/O time) just aren't. They're done with seemingly do optimisation whatsoever. 10 blocks are written full of zeroes, then are coped to new blocks to make another file, and they take as much room as they could've.

A decent filesystem would only have written one block and mapped the 10 blocks to it until one of them is changed, and would've only created a new directory entry for the new file, only creating new blocks, again, when it's written. This is a modern filesystem that takes as much space as possible.

Also, writing and copying took enough of a delay for the values to be seemingly real.

>>62191678
I'm on ZFS on FreeBSD right now and at least there's SOME optimisation. Not sure what the fuck is going on here though. iIt looks like it allocated/deallocated blocks to the volume during the operation. It definitely didn't write 100 blocks overall though.

>>62191901
By 10 blocks I mean 100. Sorry it's getting late.

>>62191557
>let me fix this hole in your wall by removing your wall

>>62191901
Nicely explained. Also, it looks like FreeBSD is doing what you want. The files are pretty small so the overhead is looking larger than it is.

File: 1500065109793.jpg (113KB, 600x662px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 600x662px

>>62191557
ZFS on linux here.
Stay pleb.

>>62192145
ZFS also works on macOS, I wonder how hard it would be to get it to boot through it though. It would probably involve rEFInd and a lot of hacks to get around the OS's expectations.

Are you using fuse or are you patching your kernel?

>>62188048
>the state of applel

>>62191901
>>62191901

its not using reflink copies because currently cp doesn't do reflink copies by default on APFS. applications like Finder do utilize reflinks when copies are done.

On btrfs for the longest time using cp without any arguments produced the same result, you had to explicitly tell cp to do reflink copies to get the result you're expecting. Its only recently that reflinks are done by default.

>>62188305
is that a dark souls reference?

>>62188048
there is literally nothing wrong with copy on write and it's not the same as dedup so you're a nigger

>>62195240
>Its only recently that reflinks are done by default.

A quick search revealed that it's only for mv since 8.24. cp still doesn't default to --reflink=auto. Some reasonings:

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/80351/why-is-cp-reflink-auto-not-the-default-behaviour

IMO the data corruption reasoning is quite bs but the performance considerations have some merit.

>>62196006
>wants cp to do what ln does
this is why we have two fucking commands, they do different things

if you want a hard or soft link make one

Explain to me like I'm a rubber duck why any of this matters.

>>62196070
OP's full of shit and gay, and doesn't understand filesystems.

Isn't that shit still on beta

>>62196121

pretty much this, OP is a retard that went beyond their depth

File: 1504211564326.png (7KB, 32x28px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 32x28px

absolutamente asqueroso

When I tried the first public beta of High Sierra, the copying thing worked weird. I would drag and drop a program to the Applications folder and see that progress bar stop halfway through, no sound notification, so I didn't know if it was copied or not. Had to close and open that folder again to get rid of that. Also it wasn't any faster than HFS+ really. I did something like the faggot at the conference and it took the same amount of time that would take me to copy that with HFS+. So I went back to Sierra.

>>62192168
I remember hearing about people booting OS X on ZFS years ago but nobody used it for / then because spotlight didn't work with it or something like that, other than that though it worked. No clue if the issues with Apple apps were ever dealt with or not, I'd like to imagine that as time goes on issues get resolved with projects but I didn't look into it myself.