![]() If the more vocal user base was hyperactive about v6 then wouldn't make much sense to put major effort into 5.3, if mainly trying to keep them happy (as opposed to addressing it in technical order. If they wanted to do 5.3 they shouldn't have put much effort into doing "6". Probably got "wish I had support on macOS 11" requests, but how many folks actually had hard pressing requirements for it? If the external drives are the only primary targets at this point, then substantially changes the requirements. If your recovery drive fails also how do you repair or make another?Īnyone who has access to an older mac that runs 10.15 and a DiskWarrior Recovery boot usb drive can take external disks and just hook them to it. If they got 5.3 running on macOS 11 the tool couldn't repair the drive it was running on. Primarily, all can do is point at older drives and drive that deliberately avoid the default paths to putting an APFS on a drive. Even on macOS Intel, the boot, system drive isn't going to be covered. ( and the tool could not really do much to fix that sealed drive anyway even if had something to understand AFPS fundamentals ). MacOS 11 introduced the 'sealed system volume' so the OS doesn't run on anything but AFPS. At this point, macOS 11 is only going to critical security updates. Seems like a better allocation of effort would have been to get 5.3 onto the Intel macOS 11 sooner rather than later. Not sure why M1 systems were added to the feature list. Users with new Macs who hook up a 'blank' drive will be walked through a process to create a AFPS Time Machine drive. Mainly effective upon just older external drives that were in HFS+. The M1 version wouldn't be able to do much with the default internal drive in a Mac. That is substantively different task that what the HFS catalog tracked. ![]() It would have to restore all of the snapshots present and versions of those files/metadata also to be a completely accurate rebuild. "rebuild the catalog" would be not just restore the lead version of the file system. (and if the version stamp got blown up in the damage. ![]() So the 'mess' they'd be trying to clean up would have different structures to deal with depending upon the version. Each version has a bootstrap code that you could load as get started with the file system. The other problem was that APFS was not a static, completely finished file system. ) you aren't going to find 3rd party utilities like Diskwarrior there. If you go to other copy-on-write file systems ( ZFS, etc. (APFS is not so diligent about protecting users' file contents, but "data about how the data is organized" is protected.) APFS also fragments files as it does copy on write. APFS does check sums on the metadata so if it is really blow away you are in sad shape. If the metadata really has gotten damaged so bad fsck can't fit it. Documentation telling you that it is a muich harder tasks isn't really going to make the task easier. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |