Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
macOS High Sierra (10.13) Unsupported Macs Thread
- Thread starter foxlet
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I have an officially supported MacBook Pro 2012, 2.9GHz Core i7 with 16GB's ram running High Sierra on a 256GB Samsung SSD. When installing HS I let it convert the HFS SSD to APFS and honestly I don't really perceive any performance difference over how it was previously.
This was a great machine before APFS, it's definitely not worse than before, just not any better like I had hoped.
Maybe, just maybe will experience performance increase with the GM of PR
Hopefully, we will see but if there is no considerable perceived performance increase on an officially supported machine, I don't imagine APFS on an unsupported machine will be worth it. Same results for my unsupported iMac, I have HS installed on an APFS volume, performance did not suffer but I wouldn't say it got any better though.
Has anyone actually ran some disk i/o benchmarks to get real numbers? It also might be interesting to try the ancient BYTE unix benahmark which is still available at....
https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench/tree/master/UnixBench
My recollection is that the disk I/O benchmark in that one always showed the lower performance in the HFS filesystem compared to other UNIX filesystems. However, that performance gap was always attributed to the Mach kernel's messaging compared to monolithic kernels.
In truth, while a file system speed boost would be a bonus, ultimately it's not my primary concern here with APFS. I'm most interested in install complexity, reliability, and stability.
I understand that HFS+ has its problems, and it's really, really old, but OTOH, since it's old, pretty much everything knows how to do deal with it. OTOH, APFS is brand new, and so new that even just a few months ago people were having read/write issues with it. Furthermore, a lot of third party software can't really deal with it properly yet.
I just realized that SuperDuper! is not compatible with APFS yet. Carbon Cloner 5 is compatible, but interestingly, the creator of CCC suggests not updating to APFS just yet. He states (as of July 7), that not only have there been various implementation issues some developers have encountered, but what's worse is that there isn't enough documentation from Apple on APFS to deal with those issues.
https://bombich.com/blog/2017/07/07/pondering-conversion-from-hfs-apfs
What's interesting though is the statement that APFS will not be optional for flash based storage.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208018
Nonetheless, we have our SSD machines running HFS+ on SSDs. Is this just because we are running betas? The good news which I was not aware of though was that any machine with Sierra 10.12.6 or later can read an APFS drive.
I understand that HFS+ has its problems, and it's really, really old, but OTOH, since it's old, pretty much everything knows how to do deal with it. OTOH, APFS is brand new, and so new that even just a few months ago people were having read/write issues with it. Furthermore, a lot of third party software can't really deal with it properly yet.
I just realized that SuperDuper! is not compatible with APFS yet. Carbon Cloner 5 is compatible, but interestingly, the creator of CCC suggests not updating to APFS just yet. He states (as of July 7), that not only have there been various implementation issues some developers have encountered, but what's worse is that there isn't enough documentation from Apple on APFS to deal with those issues.
https://bombich.com/blog/2017/07/07/pondering-conversion-from-hfs-apfs
What's interesting though is the statement that APFS will not be optional for flash based storage.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208018
Nonetheless, we have our SSD machines running HFS+ on SSDs. Is this just because we are running betas? The good news which I was not aware of though was that any machine with Sierra 10.12.6 or later can read an APFS drive.
@EugW @Computers 4 U LLC @Ultracyclist Throwing in my two cents - I think you're missing the point here.
I mean, sure, it would be nice if we could see a performance boost in day-to-day usage just by upgrading to a new filesystem. And there actually should be some of that when upgrading to APFS, because Apple did some work on that front, they focused quite a bit on latency.
But even if there's no perceivable speed improvement, I really can't agree with this statement:
Because there's still a lot to gain by switching to APFS. Here are few examples (those who know this stuff already can skip it, I'm writing this with those who don't in mind):
CLONES AND COPY-ON-WRITE
Copying and moving files will be much faster, virtually instant. That's because the files are not really being copied or moved. What you'll see as a copy will actually be a "reference" to the original, and it will not occupy any additional disk space. These are called Clones.
Only when you actually modify that copy in some way, make some changes to it, will it start taking up disk space - but even in that case, it will not be the size of the original file. What will happen is, that new data (changes you made) will be written somewhere else on the disk (invisible to you, we're talking low-level disk block stuff here), but the rest of the data, stuff that didn't change - will still be shared with the original. This new algorithm is called copy-on-write.
So, an example: you have a 2GB .psd file and you make a copy of it. You won't have 2GB less disk space after that, because the copy is actually pointing to the original. Now, you open that .psd copy file, make some changes and save. Now you'll start losing some disk space, but still, it will not be whole 2GB, but rather only the amount of data that changed. The rest of that copy file still points to the original (they both share that chunk of data that's the same in both of them).
CRASH PROTECTION
This will shield you from stuff like accidental crashes or power outages (not a problem for laptop users with working batteries, but a problem for iMac, Mac Pro, Mac mini users - you lose power, you machine shuts down immediately).
For example, when you save a file, then instead of overwriting existing data in place (writing changes directly to that file), it writes that data to a new place on disk (invisible to you), and only after that save operation is completed and was successful, it "switches" that old data for the new data. Thanks to that, if a power failure occurs during that process, you won't end up with a corrupted file or a file with mangled data. The original data will be intact.
SPACE SHARING
This one is nice too. Multiple volumes on the same disk can share the same free space. For example, if you have a disk that's 1TB and you have two volumes on that disk, say, volume Tom that currently uses 200GB and volume Jerry that currently uses 500GB, then the free space reported for both of those volumes will be 300GB (1TB disk - 200GB from Tom - 500GB from Jerry). Both of those volumes can make use of that free space.
This is unlike what you currently have with HFS+. Currently if you partition a 1TB disk to two volumes, 500GB Tom and 500GB Jerry, and you have used 460GB on Tom, but only 100GB on Jerry - free space reported for Tom will only be 40GB, even though you have 400GB of free space on Jerry just sitting there, wasted.
DATA INTEGRITY
APFS uses checksums to ensure data integrity. Sadly, it's only for its own metadata, not for user data (at least at this point). But it's still something we didn't have on HFS+ and checksums on user data may come in the future.
These are just a few, but there's also native, built-in encryption, sparse files, and snapshots (which will be awesome once Time Machine supports it/once they introduce new Time Machine).
P.S. This is all very simplified, I know, but it's meant to be that way, to give only a birds-eye view on the matter
.
I mean, sure, it would be nice if we could see a performance boost in day-to-day usage just by upgrading to a new filesystem. And there actually should be some of that when upgrading to APFS, because Apple did some work on that front, they focused quite a bit on latency.
But even if there's no perceivable speed improvement, I really can't agree with this statement:
Because there's still a lot to gain by switching to APFS. Here are few examples (those who know this stuff already can skip it, I'm writing this with those who don't in mind):
CLONES AND COPY-ON-WRITE
Copying and moving files will be much faster, virtually instant. That's because the files are not really being copied or moved. What you'll see as a copy will actually be a "reference" to the original, and it will not occupy any additional disk space. These are called Clones.
Only when you actually modify that copy in some way, make some changes to it, will it start taking up disk space - but even in that case, it will not be the size of the original file. What will happen is, that new data (changes you made) will be written somewhere else on the disk (invisible to you, we're talking low-level disk block stuff here), but the rest of the data, stuff that didn't change - will still be shared with the original. This new algorithm is called copy-on-write.
So, an example: you have a 2GB .psd file and you make a copy of it. You won't have 2GB less disk space after that, because the copy is actually pointing to the original. Now, you open that .psd copy file, make some changes and save. Now you'll start losing some disk space, but still, it will not be whole 2GB, but rather only the amount of data that changed. The rest of that copy file still points to the original (they both share that chunk of data that's the same in both of them).
CRASH PROTECTION
This will shield you from stuff like accidental crashes or power outages (not a problem for laptop users with working batteries, but a problem for iMac, Mac Pro, Mac mini users - you lose power, you machine shuts down immediately).
For example, when you save a file, then instead of overwriting existing data in place (writing changes directly to that file), it writes that data to a new place on disk (invisible to you), and only after that save operation is completed and was successful, it "switches" that old data for the new data. Thanks to that, if a power failure occurs during that process, you won't end up with a corrupted file or a file with mangled data. The original data will be intact.
SPACE SHARING
This one is nice too. Multiple volumes on the same disk can share the same free space. For example, if you have a disk that's 1TB and you have two volumes on that disk, say, volume Tom that currently uses 200GB and volume Jerry that currently uses 500GB, then the free space reported for both of those volumes will be 300GB (1TB disk - 200GB from Tom - 500GB from Jerry). Both of those volumes can make use of that free space.
This is unlike what you currently have with HFS+. Currently if you partition a 1TB disk to two volumes, 500GB Tom and 500GB Jerry, and you have used 460GB on Tom, but only 100GB on Jerry - free space reported for Tom will only be 40GB, even though you have 400GB of free space on Jerry just sitting there, wasted.
DATA INTEGRITY
APFS uses checksums to ensure data integrity. Sadly, it's only for its own metadata, not for user data (at least at this point). But it's still something we didn't have on HFS+ and checksums on user data may come in the future.
These are just a few, but there's also native, built-in encryption, sparse files, and snapshots (which will be awesome once Time Machine supports it/once they introduce new Time Machine).
P.S. This is all very simplified, I know, but it's meant to be that way, to give only a birds-eye view on the matter
.
Last edited:
Besides speed improvements, I agree that there are some definite benefits to APFS but I also believe that during WWDC Apple made it pretty clear that there would be noticeable speed improvements by switching to the new APFS file system. I could be wrong on that but that's how I interpreted it.@EugW @Computers 4 U LLC @Ultracyclist Throwing in my two cents - I think you're missing the point here.
I mean, sure, it would be nice if we could see a performance boost in day-to-day usage just by upgrading to a new filesystem. And there actually should be some of that when upgrading to APFS, because Apple did some work on that front, they focused quite a bit on latency.
But even if there's no perceivable speed improvement, I really can't agree with this statement:
Because there's still a lot to gain by switching to APFS. Here are few examples (those who know this stuff already can skip it, I'm writing this with those who don't in mind):
CLONES AND COPY-ON-WRITE
Copying and moving files will be much faster, virtually instant. That's because the files are not really being copied or moved. What you'll see as a copy will actually be a "reference" to the original, and it will not occupy any additional disk space. These are called Clones.
Only when you actually modify that copy in some way, make some changes to it, will it start taking up disk space - but even in that case, it will not be the size of the original file. What will happen is, that new data (changes you made) will be written somewhere else on the disk (invisible to you, we're talking low-level disk block stuff here), but the rest of the data, stuff that didn't change - will still be shared with the original. This new algorithm is called copy-on-write.
So, an example: you have a 2GB .psd file and you make a copy of it. You won't have 2GB less disk space after that, because the copy is actually pointing to the original. Now, you open that .psd copy file, make some changes and save. Now you'll start losing some disk space, but still, it will not be whole 2GB, but rather only the amount of data that changed. The rest of that copy file still points to the original (they both share that chunk of data that's the same in both of them).
CRASH PROTECTION
This will shield you from stuff like accidental crashes or power outages (not a problem for laptop users with working batteries, but a problem for iMac, Mac Pro, Mac mini users - you lose power, you machine shuts down immediately).
For example, when you save a file, then instead of overwriting existing data in place (writing changes directly to that file), it writes that data to a new place on disk (invisible to you), and only after that save operation is completed and was successful, it "switches" that old data for the new data. Thanks to that, if a power failure occurs during that process, you won't end up with a corrupted file or a file with mangled data. The original data will be intact.
SPACE SHARING
This one is nice too. Multiple volumes on the same disk can share the same free space. For example, if you have a disk that's 1TB and you have two volumes on that disk, say, volume Tom that currently uses 200GB and volume Jerry that currently uses 500GB, then the free space reported for both of those volumes will be 300GB (1TB disk - 200GB from Tom - 500GB from Jerry). Both of those volumes can make use of that free space.
This is unlike what you currently have with HFS+. Currently if you partition a 1TB disk to two volumes, 500GB Tom and 500GB Jerry, and you have used 460GB on Tom, but only 100GB on Jerry - free space reported for Tom will only be 40GB, even though you have 400GB of free space on Jerry just sitting there, wasted.
DATA INTEGRITY
APFS uses checksums to ensure data integrity. Sadly, it's only for its own metadata, not for user data (at least at this point). But it's still something we didn't have on HFS+ and checksums on user data may come in the future.
These are just a few, but there's also native, built-in encryption, sparse files, and snapshots (which will be awesome once Time Machine supports it/once they introduce new Time Machine).
P.S. This is all very simplified, I know, but it's meant to be that way, to give only a birds-eye view on the matter
Oh, I'm not disputing that. What I am concerned about are the warnings from the likes such as Mike Bombich. He suggests there will be significant growing pains in the first few months after implementation on Macs, and suggests letting others be the guinea pigs first. Just the fact that SuperDuper! doesn't even support APFS yet in September 2017 is concerning. I'd be perfectly happy to run HFS+ for now, and then say in the new year, switch to APFS.
But that may not be an option for some anyway if it's true that the release version of High Sierra requires APFS for both new installs and upgrades on SSDs. If true, I wonder what this means for High Sierra using the patched installer on unsupported Macs with SSDs.
But that may not be an option for some anyway if it's true that the release version of High Sierra requires APFS for both new installs and upgrades on SSDs. If true, I wonder what this means for High Sierra using the patched installer on unsupported Macs with SSDs.
Yeah, like I said before, I too am not yet sure what to do. Despite my excitement about APFS, I don't know how comfortable I am using it every day with my data, at this point in time.
Initially, I was going to upgrade to High Sierra fairly early on (if not immediately) but stick to HFS+ and see how this whole APFS thing goes for the rest of the world.
But now it seems like I'll be forced to stick with Sierra for a while, since converting to APFS on SSD-equipped Macs is not something you can opt out during the upgrade to High Sierra (we'll see).
So it looks like it's either APFS or Sierra.
Initially, I was going to upgrade to High Sierra fairly early on (if not immediately) but stick to HFS+ and see how this whole APFS thing goes for the rest of the world.
But now it seems like I'll be forced to stick with Sierra for a while, since converting to APFS on SSD-equipped Macs is not something you can opt out during the upgrade to High Sierra (we'll see).
So it looks like it's either APFS or Sierra.
Can't wait to hear all the drama from companies that play it fast and loose with OS X upgrades. I mean I really want APFS to succeed but sometimes people need to learn the hard way.
I'm not sure I'd call it "fast and loose" when Apple compels APFS conversion when updating to the latest macOS on a Mac with an SSD. All those millions of people with "Automatically check for updates", and "Install macOS" checked in System Preferences won't think they've been fast and loose either.
You should be able to enable TRIM by running "sudo trimforce enable" in Terminal.
Thank you, TRIM is now enabled
Any known issues running TRIM on an APFS partition?
I'm on a MBP mid-2009, all is running great except that my Bluetooth seems to not want to work no matter what I try (hardware not even recognized - not even in system report - tried SMC, PRAM, delete plists, power drain...nothing). Also, any news on restoring touch functionality to the touchpad? Not too big a deal, but now I have to click the trackpad to register a click whereas before I just tapped on it..
thanks again and great work!
Last edited:
Bluetooth works fine for me for my 2009 13" MacBookPro5,5.Thank you, TRIM is now enabled
Any known issues running TRIM on an APFS partition?
I'm on a MBP mid-2009, all is running great except that my Bluetooth seems to not want to work no matter what I try (hardware not even recognized - not even in system report - tried SMC, PRAM, delete plists, power drain...nothing). Also, any news on restoring touch functionality to the touchpad? Not too big a deal, but now I have to click the trackpad to register a click whereas before I just tapped on it..
thanks again and great work!
[doublepost=1504667224][/doublepost]Heh, after all that conversation about APFS being too young, I've just reformatted my drive as APFS just for the hell of it. I'll take one for the team I guess.
I decided to get rid of all the legacy apps, etc. on the machine, so it's time for are-install. I figure since it's a secondary machine anyway, I can be a guinea pig with that one.
High Sierra (re-)installing now.
Last edited:
At least on my supported Mac, during the HS upgrade/installation I was given the option to convert to APFS or leave it as is, and this was with a Samsung Pro SSD.
Reinstalling now on HFS+. I didn't like the fact that in the list of bootable drives the APFS drive was only listed as EFI Boot, and I didn't like the text dump at the beginning of the boot. Also, I didn't like the loss of the recovery partition.Heh, after all that conversation about APFS being too young, I've just reformatted my drive as APFS just for the hell of it. I'll take one for the team I guess.
I decided to get rid of all the legacy apps, etc. on the machine, so it's time for are-install. I figure since it's a secondary machine anyway, I can be a guinea pig with that one.
High Sierra (re-)installing now.
No. Looks OS X 10.1-ish with the verbose boot, and it’s preferable to have the recovery partition.
BTW, is it possible to delete the EFI Boot partition now that I’m back on HFS+? If I select that, it verbose boots to nothing.
Good points EugW and usually I'm picky like that too, but the APFS seems to be the future so I can live it but...
1. Is it not possible to re-create the Recovery Partition using the Recovery Partition Creator that is available on the web? Even though it is APFS...?
2. Does anyone know a way to make the text dump at the beginning of the boot sequence non-verbose so that it remains hidden?
and 3. anyone had any luck with Bootcamp on APFS systems?
1. Is it not possible to re-create the Recovery Partition using the Recovery Partition Creator that is available on the web? Even though it is APFS...?
2. Does anyone know a way to make the text dump at the beginning of the boot sequence non-verbose so that it remains hidden?
and 3. anyone had any luck with Bootcamp on APFS systems?
Mount the ESP (run "diskutil list" in terminal, note the disk identifier, then mount using "diskutil mount diskXsX"), and run "rm -R /Volumes/EFI/EFI/BOOT". That should make it disappear from your boot menu.
[doublepost=1504673527][/doublepost]
1. Unfortunately not, as it's set up completely differently on an APFS volume (it's actually there, but just not accessible on an unsupported machine at this point).Good points EugW and usually I'm picky like that too, but the APFS seems to be the future so I can live it but...
1. Is it not possible to re-create the Recovery Partition using the Recovery Partition Creator that is available on the web? Even though it is APFS...?
2. Does anyone know a way to make the text dump at the beginning of the boot sequence non-verbose so that it remains hidden?
and 3. anyone had any luck with Bootcamp on APFS systems?
2. That's not possible either, due to the fact that this APFS booting implementation utilizes a script that runs in the EFI shell. I may be able to find a better solution, but for right now with this implementation, there's no way to hide the text.
3. Haven't tested that, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work. I'd recommend creating the partition (with FAT format) that you intend to install Windows on using Disk Utility, rather than with the Bootcamp assistant. Then, just boot your Windows installation media and install to that partition.
Last edited:
Thank you Dosdude!
I just discovered an issue - if I let my computer go to sleep I can't get back to the desktop and need to do a hard shutdown. It just goes to a black screen after you hear the disks spin up again...is this issue well known? Again I'm on a MBP mid 2009 5,2, SSD + APFS. All else working great!
I just discovered an issue - if I let my computer go to sleep I can't get back to the desktop and need to do a hard shutdown. It just goes to a black screen after you hear the disks spin up again...is this issue well known? Again I'm on a MBP mid 2009 5,2, SSD + APFS. All else working great!