![]() Overall, MPG strongly recommends sticking with MacOS Extended (Journaled) format for any hard drive storage, backup or otherwise. But a proper backup strategy should never have to resort to recovery of a damaged volume. for media storage) I have not noticed any difference between HFS+ and APFS. File copies between folders on the same APFS disk is almost instantaneous and doesn't take up disk space (due to 'clones'). Performance: Time Machine is much quicker on APFS. Should a drive crash and need recovery, APFS is more or less hopeless whereas MacOS Extended volumes have strong industry support. For example, multiple APFS volumes sharing a single container/partition. Don’t expect good speed, but if that is a goal (it isn’t, for me), then APFS should be used. Tradeoffs exist: fans of versioned snapshots might with to use APFS even on hard drives. Even initially, I have observed extremely poor performance with some operations (eg file deletion). AFAIK, this is inherent to its design and thus the use of macOS Ventura vs macOS Monterey or earlier has no relevance.ĪPFS used on a hard drive will get slower and slower over time, far above and beyond conventional fragmentation. And that includes an APFS encrypted drive. ![]() An APFS drive is not supported as a Time Machine backup drive. And for Macs running a Mac OS earlier than Big Sur. For those Macs you’ll need an external drive formatted to Mac OS Extended Journaled. MPG: APFS was designed assuming a fast random access device eg an SSD.ĪPFS can be used for hard drives but because of the way it organizes and allocates information, it is a bad match to the performance characteristics of a hard drive. This is because an older Mac running these earlier releases of Mac OS are not compatible with APFS. ![]() No need to worry about partition sizes - just create a single APFS partition/container and create multiple volumes inside it. Time Machine with APFS destination is faster as well as being much more robust. Has anything changed to recommend one format over the other for HDD?Īfter getting formatted I have to decide on a naming convention and volumes to streamline drives and multiple backups using cloning. resistance to corruption), APFS is more robust. See an article you had from 2021 saying Mac OS Extended (Journaled) for HDD but see other sites OWC, Apple recommending APFS on newer OS. But since your Mac is a brand new MacBook Air 2021, its operating system does not have to be taken into account. In terms of compatibility, you cant write to an APFS-formatted drive on a Mac running macOS Sierra and older versions. I am finding different recommendations on line for formatting a traditional spinning HDD for Mac using Ventura. In terms of file transfer speed, APFS has a higher read and write speed than Mac OS Extended. I am setting up my first OWC 4 bay Mercury Elite Pro Quad for backup purposes, Time Machine, Lightroom Catalog, etc. I think I'll leave my iMac alone.- SEND FEEDBACK Related: backup, hard drive, reader commentįirst want to thank you for the amazing information and testing you provide. ![]() High Sierra seems to be working OK on both. Myself, I will wait about a year before converting any disk to APFS. But, APFS does not verify the integrity of the data itself (Apple said they trust the hardware !). APFS or Mac OS Extended, which one should you choose APFS refers to Apple File System, which is a proprietary file system used by Mac devices running macOS 10. This helps to keep the filesystem healthy. There are more details in the article 'APFS vs Mac OS Extended Which Mac Disk Format Is Best' if you need more information. Another advantage that this file system has over APFS is its compatibility with Time Machine. APFS verifies the integrity of the metadata. Mac file system for a long time before APFS was introduced.APFS most probably helps TimeMachine to be quicker. In a TimeMachine backup, it _will_ grow huge and gradually makes TimeMachine slow, and, _very_ difficult (slow) to copy the TM backup to another drive. APFS has native "hardlinks", HFS+ has to fake them in hidden file.less physical write operations : APFS does not write twice, HFS+ Journal writes the journal first, then the actual data (double write).So far, the obvious benefits I can see for APFS over HFS+ are : I'm a software developer (on Unix & Linux, not on MacOS, yet), and, I use low level tools on the Mac (Terminal, diskutil commands, rsync. Then decide if it is worth trouble of converting the HDD of your iMac. Read the section on APFS in articles reviewing MacOS Sierra. Next, APFS will not suddenly improve the performances of the internal HDD. Then, do it again, on another external drive. If your network server or NAS device supports Time Machine Bonjour. If the disk uses the Master Boot Record (MBR) partition type, some partitions may not be available for use with Time Machine. First, if you have not done a full backup of the internal HDD to an external, do it. Time Machine still supports backups on Mac OS Extended format (Journaled), Mac OS Extended (Case-sensitive, Journaled), and Xsan formatted disks.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |