macOS 27 does not support CoreStorage volumes

(wadetregaskis.com)

55 points | by colejohnson66 3 hours ago

5 comments

  • hmartin 59 minutes ago
    Also dropped support for FireWire drives, as I just found out the hard way.
  • exabrial 1 hour ago
    MacOs 27 is a disaster. All of the sudden, I have 35% of a computer left to do any kind of work.
    • R1D3R 0 minutes ago
      Apple software updates are always a downgrade. It's an opportunity to abuse customers that Apple just can't resist.
    • drooopy 58 minutes ago
      Among other signs of awfulness, macOS 27 (and 26 before it) half the battery life of my M1 Air, forcing me to stay on Sequoia for a 2nd year.
      • Grombobulous 51 minutes ago
        Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with a 6 year old battery I’m sure.
        • zbentley 20 minutes ago
          Not GP, but: I had replaced the battery on my M1 Max 6mo ago with an aftermarket part. On MacOS 26 that routinely gave about 5 hours of coding/browsing/active screen time (no audio or massive CPU load other than unit test runs).

          Anecdotally, after updating to MacOS 27 2mo ago that time has been reduced by between a third and a half, doing the same kind of daily work on the exact same project, without major new apps installed or new always-open browser tabs.

          I don’t know if it’s the OS’s fault directly or the fault of an app I use that interacts poorly with the new OS’s power management, but either one is damning. I’m not doing anything particularly weird.

    • otterley 58 minutes ago
      What does that mean?
      • sys_64738 47 minutes ago
        Maybe referring to the Apple Superintelligence being auto-added to macOS 27.
        • varispeed 45 minutes ago
          I'll wait for Apple Supremeintelligence in macOS 29
  • varispeed 46 minutes ago
    I upgraded and this system is a dumpster fire. Lags, random crashes, performance issues, random CPU spikes...
  • jon128 58 minutes ago
    [flagged]
    • GrifMD 56 minutes ago
      Darling, no one is going to take your grievances seriously when you speak like that.
  • throwaway27448 1 hour ago
    For those of you who have never heard of this, it's macos's LVM. Why they didn't just refer to it as LVM is beyond me.
    • duskwuff 57 minutes ago
      > Why they didn't just refer to it as LVM is beyond me.

      Because it isn't LVM, and giving it the same name as another similar-but-distinct technology would just make matters more confusing.

      • Grombobulous 55 minutes ago
        According to the Wikipedia article about CoreStorage, it seems like the primary/only use case was Fusion drives (hybrid SSD/HDD hardware).

        The article says “It renders your expensive storage hardware completely useless.” but I’m really curious what that hardware could actually be. This seems like a pretty dead technology.

        • kstrauser 13 minutes ago
          I've gotta agree. I'm not sure what expensive storage hardware would be both relevant today and unable to migrate off CoreStorage. For example, my most expensive storage is a NAS with an iSCSI target, and it couldn't care less what blocks I write to it. If I had a CoreStorage setup on it, I could migrate the data to a new target and then reuse that space for something else. The hardware wouldn't mind, or even know, that I'd changed what's on it.

          You mentioned old, obsolete Fusion drives. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything else where that'd matter, so you're probably right about that. AFAIK you can reformat those to use something other than CoreStorage if you're actually stuck using those boat anchors.

        • mikepurvis 21 minutes ago
          Sidebar, but as an end user, I remain annoyed that there isn't seemingly something that's a worthy successor to fusion drives.

          Like I have an Unraid box with dual NVMe (RAID1) as the "cache" drive and a bunch of spinning disks as the "array", but it's also very manual, like torrents get downloaded first to cache and then a nightly job syncs them to the array. Feels like a real missed opportunity to not be able to have this kind of config transparently managed.

        • hagbard_c 7 minutes ago
          I have one of those in an ageing late 2009 27" iMac running Linux. It is a Seagate ST2000DX001-1CM1, a 2TB "SSHD" which comes down to having 8 GB of NAND storage bolted on to a conventional 2TB drive. It doesn't need any special driver to do its thing so I wonder what that CoreStorage bit is supposed to be about.
      • throwaway27448 18 minutes ago
        Does it not manage logical volumes?
      • sysguest 42 minutes ago
        ...like route 53? which is "dns configuration, but fancier"
        • zamadatix 37 minutes ago
          AFAIK "Route 53" was a net new name for such a product?
    • vondur 28 minutes ago
      It doesn't really do everything that a real LVM does though. This was used to support those annoyingly bad Fusion Drives. They dropped them around 2020 I think.
      • throwaway27448 19 minutes ago
        > It doesn't really do everything that a real LVM does though.

        It manages logical volumes. Any quibbling is a matter of degree.