Is there a reason to prefer HFS+ over APFS for disk images in High Sierra and/or Mojave?How to prevent conversion to APFS on High Sierra installFileVault Encryption Issues On High Sierra (APFS)APFS Errors: fsck can't repairIs it OK to use an HFS+ start disk with High Sierra?Cannot create Bootcamp partition on High Sierra APFS SSD diskUnable to eject disk images or drives in High SierraUsing Carbon Copy Cloner 4 to create encrypted bootable HFS+ clones from APFS sourceAPFS and HFS+ volumes on the same partitionDisk format for HDD with both APFS and HFS+ volumesWhy does Refind break when upgrading from Mac OS High Sierra (HFS) to Mojave (APFS) on NVMexpress Macs?
If Melisandre foresaw another character closing blue eyes, why did she follow Stannis?
Would "lab meat" be able to feed a much larger global population
Can I use 1000v rectifier diodes instead of 600v rectifier diodes?
Power LED from 3.3V Power Pin without Resistor
Why are notes ordered like they are on a piano?
What is the word which sounds like "shtrass"?
How can I fairly adjudicate the effects of height differences on ranged attacks?
Copy line and insert it in a new position with sed or awk
How to efficiently calculate prefix sum of frequencies of characters in a string?
Feels like I am getting dragged into office politics
Accidentally deleted the "/usr/share" folder
CRT Oscilloscope - part of the plot is missing
Why do money exchangers give different rates to different bills
Field Length Validation for Desktop Application which has maximum 1000 characters
When do aircrafts become solarcrafts?
Why is the SNP putting so much emphasis on currency plans?
How could a planet have most of its water in the atmosphere?
How did Captain America use this power?
Is this homebrew race based on the Draco Volans lizard species balanced?
The barbers paradox first order logic formalization
How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?
Why is Arya visibly scared in the library in S8E3?
How did Arya manage to disguise herself?
How do you center multiple equations that have multiple steps?
Is there a reason to prefer HFS+ over APFS for disk images in High Sierra and/or Mojave?
How to prevent conversion to APFS on High Sierra installFileVault Encryption Issues On High Sierra (APFS)APFS Errors: fsck can't repairIs it OK to use an HFS+ start disk with High Sierra?Cannot create Bootcamp partition on High Sierra APFS SSD diskUnable to eject disk images or drives in High SierraUsing Carbon Copy Cloner 4 to create encrypted bootable HFS+ clones from APFS sourceAPFS and HFS+ volumes on the same partitionDisk format for HDD with both APFS and HFS+ volumesWhy does Refind break when upgrading from Mac OS High Sierra (HFS) to Mojave (APFS) on NVMexpress Macs?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I'm creating small encrypted disk images (under 10 GB) to be used to secure and transfer data between systems running High Sierra (for now) and Mojave. Are there any technical reasons to prefer HFS+ (Mac OS Extended, Journaled) over APFS for these images. The images will be created as .sparsebundle files if it matters.
Edited to add: .sparsebundle files will be stored on an APFS file system in all cases.
high-sierra mojave apfs hfs+ sparsebundle
asked Mar 20 at 22:18
user11421user11421
485
add a comment |
I'm creating small encrypted disk images (under 10 GB) to be used to secure and transfer data between systems running High Sierra (for now) and Mojave. Are there any technical reasons to prefer HFS+ (Mac OS Extended, Journaled) over APFS for these images. The images will be created as .sparsebundle files if it matters.
Edited to add: .sparsebundle files will be stored on an APFS file system in all cases.
high-sierra mojave apfs hfs+ sparsebundle
asked Mar 20 at 22:18
user11421user11421
485
add a comment |
I'm creating small encrypted disk images (under 10 GB) to be used to secure and transfer data between systems running High Sierra (for now) and Mojave. Are there any technical reasons to prefer HFS+ (Mac OS Extended, Journaled) over APFS for these images. The images will be created as .sparsebundle files if it matters.
Edited to add: .sparsebundle files will be stored on an APFS file system in all cases.
high-sierra mojave apfs hfs+ sparsebundle
asked Mar 20 at 22:18
user11421user11421
485
I'm creating small encrypted disk images (under 10 GB) to be used to secure and transfer data between systems running High Sierra (for now) and Mojave. Are there any technical reasons to prefer HFS+ (Mac OS Extended, Journaled) over APFS for these images. The images will be created as .sparsebundle files if it matters.
Edited to add: .sparsebundle files will be stored on an APFS file system in all cases.
high-sierra mojave apfs hfs+ sparsebundle
high-sierra mojave apfs hfs+ sparsebundle
asked Mar 20 at 22:18
user11421user11421
485
asked Mar 20 at 22:18
user11421user11421
485
edited Mar 21 at 1:02
user11421
asked Mar 20 at 22:18
user11421user11421
485
asked Mar 20 at 22:18
user11421user11421
485
asked Mar 20 at 22:18
user11421user11421
485
485
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Whether you choose APFS or HFS+ for the sparse disk image will matter very little. They are synthetic filesystems and pass through iOPS and data to the underlying filesystem. That will have some technical details to consider and illuminate the differences how each relies on the storage to store filesystem data and work with or against the hardware that records the bits physically.
HFS+ has more third party data recovery options and is further backward compatible so those are two main technical reasons to potentially prefer HFS+ over APFS. If you’re storing the data on a spinning disk, that might be a technical advantage or might not. You’ll have to test that on your kit as benchmarks vary widely there.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System
You give up the metadata protection checksums, crash protection of copy on write and encryption advances of APFS as well as the redesign of the filesystem to take advantage of flash/ssd. You also lose snapshots, clone copy and don’t receive the more flexible space allocation features of APFS.
Speed chould be a wash on flash / ssd for your use case, but I would still benchmark your sparse images on both file systems. HFS+ might be far better tuned for a HDD still ( or possible for evermore) as APFS sacrifices HDD performance for flash and ssd performance today as implemented.
answered Mar 20 at 22:27
bmike♦bmike
163k46293634
I do not understand this answer. Q asks for small encrypted images. Transferred between .13 + .14. I read this A as primarily about FSs on real disks?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:03
These general considerations shouldn’t matter for sparse images. We don’t need to know if the Macs are SSD or HDD and it likely won’t matter if the transfer is either. I read this as what filesystem should OP choose for the device doing the transfer. Can I make things better @LangLangC or just wait for OP to confirm I have it correct or wrong?
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:21
IDK. For images I would think compatibility is more of a (theoretical?) concern, especially if encrypted, then perhaps performance of images, how do they benchmark in RAM, how APFSonHFS vs HFSonAPFS etc.
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:52
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:54
@bmike I'm more interested in which filesystem is better for use in an image than for a physical device. The information about choosing for a device is also important and appreciated.
– user11421
Mar 21 at 1:00
|
show 2 more comments
In addition to @bmike's very good answer, some legacy programs expect the directory listing to be pre-sorted as it is in HFS+; this is an uncommon issue but some things (especially ones which implement their own custom file selector for whatever reason) run into it all the same.
answered Mar 20 at 23:01
fluffyfluffy
482416
Nice details. Wouldn’t the sparse bundle cover the sorting, though. The OP gets to choose a FS on the transfer device and a FS for the sparse image. Perhaps this it the point @langLangC is making. I didn’t go into that in my answer.
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:22
@bmike I was referring to the directory listing on the virtual filesystem itself (i.e. what the thing mounting the sparsebundle sees); the OS itself probably doesn't care about the directory sort order of the sparsebundle's spans. :)
– fluffy
Mar 20 at 23:33
Yes - my +1 on your answer remains. You caught the real question where I missed it initially (or backed into it at the end of my answer.)
– bmike♦
Mar 21 at 1:49
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Whether you choose APFS or HFS+ for the sparse disk image will matter very little. They are synthetic filesystems and pass through iOPS and data to the underlying filesystem. That will have some technical details to consider and illuminate the differences how each relies on the storage to store filesystem data and work with or against the hardware that records the bits physically.
HFS+ has more third party data recovery options and is further backward compatible so those are two main technical reasons to potentially prefer HFS+ over APFS. If you’re storing the data on a spinning disk, that might be a technical advantage or might not. You’ll have to test that on your kit as benchmarks vary widely there.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System
You give up the metadata protection checksums, crash protection of copy on write and encryption advances of APFS as well as the redesign of the filesystem to take advantage of flash/ssd. You also lose snapshots, clone copy and don’t receive the more flexible space allocation features of APFS.
Speed chould be a wash on flash / ssd for your use case, but I would still benchmark your sparse images on both file systems. HFS+ might be far better tuned for a HDD still ( or possible for evermore) as APFS sacrifices HDD performance for flash and ssd performance today as implemented.
answered Mar 20 at 22:27
bmike♦bmike
163k46293634
I do not understand this answer. Q asks for small encrypted images. Transferred between .13 + .14. I read this A as primarily about FSs on real disks?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:03
These general considerations shouldn’t matter for sparse images. We don’t need to know if the Macs are SSD or HDD and it likely won’t matter if the transfer is either. I read this as what filesystem should OP choose for the device doing the transfer. Can I make things better @LangLangC or just wait for OP to confirm I have it correct or wrong?
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:21
IDK. For images I would think compatibility is more of a (theoretical?) concern, especially if encrypted, then perhaps performance of images, how do they benchmark in RAM, how APFSonHFS vs HFSonAPFS etc.
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:52
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:54
@bmike I'm more interested in which filesystem is better for use in an image than for a physical device. The information about choosing for a device is also important and appreciated.
– user11421
Mar 21 at 1:00
|
show 2 more comments
Whether you choose APFS or HFS+ for the sparse disk image will matter very little. They are synthetic filesystems and pass through iOPS and data to the underlying filesystem. That will have some technical details to consider and illuminate the differences how each relies on the storage to store filesystem data and work with or against the hardware that records the bits physically.
HFS+ has more third party data recovery options and is further backward compatible so those are two main technical reasons to potentially prefer HFS+ over APFS. If you’re storing the data on a spinning disk, that might be a technical advantage or might not. You’ll have to test that on your kit as benchmarks vary widely there.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System
You give up the metadata protection checksums, crash protection of copy on write and encryption advances of APFS as well as the redesign of the filesystem to take advantage of flash/ssd. You also lose snapshots, clone copy and don’t receive the more flexible space allocation features of APFS.
Speed chould be a wash on flash / ssd for your use case, but I would still benchmark your sparse images on both file systems. HFS+ might be far better tuned for a HDD still ( or possible for evermore) as APFS sacrifices HDD performance for flash and ssd performance today as implemented.
answered Mar 20 at 22:27
bmike♦bmike
163k46293634
I do not understand this answer. Q asks for small encrypted images. Transferred between .13 + .14. I read this A as primarily about FSs on real disks?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:03
These general considerations shouldn’t matter for sparse images. We don’t need to know if the Macs are SSD or HDD and it likely won’t matter if the transfer is either. I read this as what filesystem should OP choose for the device doing the transfer. Can I make things better @LangLangC or just wait for OP to confirm I have it correct or wrong?
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:21
IDK. For images I would think compatibility is more of a (theoretical?) concern, especially if encrypted, then perhaps performance of images, how do they benchmark in RAM, how APFSonHFS vs HFSonAPFS etc.
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:52
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:54
@bmike I'm more interested in which filesystem is better for use in an image than for a physical device. The information about choosing for a device is also important and appreciated.
– user11421
Mar 21 at 1:00
|
show 2 more comments
Whether you choose APFS or HFS+ for the sparse disk image will matter very little. They are synthetic filesystems and pass through iOPS and data to the underlying filesystem. That will have some technical details to consider and illuminate the differences how each relies on the storage to store filesystem data and work with or against the hardware that records the bits physically.
HFS+ has more third party data recovery options and is further backward compatible so those are two main technical reasons to potentially prefer HFS+ over APFS. If you’re storing the data on a spinning disk, that might be a technical advantage or might not. You’ll have to test that on your kit as benchmarks vary widely there.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System
You give up the metadata protection checksums, crash protection of copy on write and encryption advances of APFS as well as the redesign of the filesystem to take advantage of flash/ssd. You also lose snapshots, clone copy and don’t receive the more flexible space allocation features of APFS.
Speed chould be a wash on flash / ssd for your use case, but I would still benchmark your sparse images on both file systems. HFS+ might be far better tuned for a HDD still ( or possible for evermore) as APFS sacrifices HDD performance for flash and ssd performance today as implemented.
answered Mar 20 at 22:27
bmike♦bmike
163k46293634
Whether you choose APFS or HFS+ for the sparse disk image will matter very little. They are synthetic filesystems and pass through iOPS and data to the underlying filesystem. That will have some technical details to consider and illuminate the differences how each relies on the storage to store filesystem data and work with or against the hardware that records the bits physically.
HFS+ has more third party data recovery options and is further backward compatible so those are two main technical reasons to potentially prefer HFS+ over APFS. If you’re storing the data on a spinning disk, that might be a technical advantage or might not. You’ll have to test that on your kit as benchmarks vary widely there.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System
You give up the metadata protection checksums, crash protection of copy on write and encryption advances of APFS as well as the redesign of the filesystem to take advantage of flash/ssd. You also lose snapshots, clone copy and don’t receive the more flexible space allocation features of APFS.
Speed chould be a wash on flash / ssd for your use case, but I would still benchmark your sparse images on both file systems. HFS+ might be far better tuned for a HDD still ( or possible for evermore) as APFS sacrifices HDD performance for flash and ssd performance today as implemented.
answered Mar 20 at 22:27
bmike♦bmike
163k46293634
edited Mar 21 at 1:48
answered Mar 20 at 22:27
bmike♦bmike
163k46293634
answered Mar 20 at 22:27
bmike♦bmike
163k46293634
answered Mar 20 at 22:27
bmike♦bmike
163k46293634
163k46293634
I do not understand this answer. Q asks for small encrypted images. Transferred between .13 + .14. I read this A as primarily about FSs on real disks?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:03
These general considerations shouldn’t matter for sparse images. We don’t need to know if the Macs are SSD or HDD and it likely won’t matter if the transfer is either. I read this as what filesystem should OP choose for the device doing the transfer. Can I make things better @LangLangC or just wait for OP to confirm I have it correct or wrong?
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:21
IDK. For images I would think compatibility is more of a (theoretical?) concern, especially if encrypted, then perhaps performance of images, how do they benchmark in RAM, how APFSonHFS vs HFSonAPFS etc.
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:52
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:54
@bmike I'm more interested in which filesystem is better for use in an image than for a physical device. The information about choosing for a device is also important and appreciated.
– user11421
Mar 21 at 1:00
|
show 2 more comments
I do not understand this answer. Q asks for small encrypted images. Transferred between .13 + .14. I read this A as primarily about FSs on real disks?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:03
These general considerations shouldn’t matter for sparse images. We don’t need to know if the Macs are SSD or HDD and it likely won’t matter if the transfer is either. I read this as what filesystem should OP choose for the device doing the transfer. Can I make things better @LangLangC or just wait for OP to confirm I have it correct or wrong?
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:21
IDK. For images I would think compatibility is more of a (theoretical?) concern, especially if encrypted, then perhaps performance of images, how do they benchmark in RAM, how APFSonHFS vs HFSonAPFS etc.
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:52
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:54
@bmike I'm more interested in which filesystem is better for use in an image than for a physical device. The information about choosing for a device is also important and appreciated.
– user11421
Mar 21 at 1:00
I do not understand this answer. Q asks for small encrypted images. Transferred between .13 + .14. I read this A as primarily about FSs on real disks?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:03
I do not understand this answer. Q asks for small encrypted images. Transferred between .13 + .14. I read this A as primarily about FSs on real disks?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:03
These general considerations shouldn’t matter for sparse images. We don’t need to know if the Macs are SSD or HDD and it likely won’t matter if the transfer is either. I read this as what filesystem should OP choose for the device doing the transfer. Can I make things better @LangLangC or just wait for OP to confirm I have it correct or wrong?
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:21
These general considerations shouldn’t matter for sparse images. We don’t need to know if the Macs are SSD or HDD and it likely won’t matter if the transfer is either. I read this as what filesystem should OP choose for the device doing the transfer. Can I make things better @LangLangC or just wait for OP to confirm I have it correct or wrong?
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:21
IDK. For images I would think compatibility is more of a (theoretical?) concern, especially if encrypted, then perhaps performance of images, how do they benchmark in RAM, how APFSonHFS vs HFSonAPFS etc.
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:52
IDK. For images I would think compatibility is more of a (theoretical?) concern, especially if encrypted, then perhaps performance of images, how do they benchmark in RAM, how APFSonHFS vs HFSonAPFS etc.
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:52
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:54
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
Mar 20 at 23:54
@bmike I'm more interested in which filesystem is better for use in an image than for a physical device. The information about choosing for a device is also important and appreciated.
– user11421
Mar 21 at 1:00
@bmike I'm more interested in which filesystem is better for use in an image than for a physical device. The information about choosing for a device is also important and appreciated.
– user11421
Mar 21 at 1:00
|
show 2 more comments
In addition to @bmike's very good answer, some legacy programs expect the directory listing to be pre-sorted as it is in HFS+; this is an uncommon issue but some things (especially ones which implement their own custom file selector for whatever reason) run into it all the same.
answered Mar 20 at 23:01
fluffyfluffy
482416
Nice details. Wouldn’t the sparse bundle cover the sorting, though. The OP gets to choose a FS on the transfer device and a FS for the sparse image. Perhaps this it the point @langLangC is making. I didn’t go into that in my answer.
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:22
@bmike I was referring to the directory listing on the virtual filesystem itself (i.e. what the thing mounting the sparsebundle sees); the OS itself probably doesn't care about the directory sort order of the sparsebundle's spans. :)
– fluffy
Mar 20 at 23:33
Yes - my +1 on your answer remains. You caught the real question where I missed it initially (or backed into it at the end of my answer.)
– bmike♦
Mar 21 at 1:49
add a comment |
In addition to @bmike's very good answer, some legacy programs expect the directory listing to be pre-sorted as it is in HFS+; this is an uncommon issue but some things (especially ones which implement their own custom file selector for whatever reason) run into it all the same.
answered Mar 20 at 23:01
fluffyfluffy
482416
Nice details. Wouldn’t the sparse bundle cover the sorting, though. The OP gets to choose a FS on the transfer device and a FS for the sparse image. Perhaps this it the point @langLangC is making. I didn’t go into that in my answer.
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:22
@bmike I was referring to the directory listing on the virtual filesystem itself (i.e. what the thing mounting the sparsebundle sees); the OS itself probably doesn't care about the directory sort order of the sparsebundle's spans. :)
– fluffy
Mar 20 at 23:33
Yes - my +1 on your answer remains. You caught the real question where I missed it initially (or backed into it at the end of my answer.)
– bmike♦
Mar 21 at 1:49
add a comment |
In addition to @bmike's very good answer, some legacy programs expect the directory listing to be pre-sorted as it is in HFS+; this is an uncommon issue but some things (especially ones which implement their own custom file selector for whatever reason) run into it all the same.
answered Mar 20 at 23:01
fluffyfluffy
482416
In addition to @bmike's very good answer, some legacy programs expect the directory listing to be pre-sorted as it is in HFS+; this is an uncommon issue but some things (especially ones which implement their own custom file selector for whatever reason) run into it all the same.
answered Mar 20 at 23:01
fluffyfluffy
482416
answered Mar 20 at 23:01
fluffyfluffy
482416
answered Mar 20 at 23:01
fluffyfluffy
482416
answered Mar 20 at 23:01
fluffyfluffy
482416
482416
Nice details. Wouldn’t the sparse bundle cover the sorting, though. The OP gets to choose a FS on the transfer device and a FS for the sparse image. Perhaps this it the point @langLangC is making. I didn’t go into that in my answer.
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:22
@bmike I was referring to the directory listing on the virtual filesystem itself (i.e. what the thing mounting the sparsebundle sees); the OS itself probably doesn't care about the directory sort order of the sparsebundle's spans. :)
– fluffy
Mar 20 at 23:33
Yes - my +1 on your answer remains. You caught the real question where I missed it initially (or backed into it at the end of my answer.)
– bmike♦
Mar 21 at 1:49
add a comment |
Nice details. Wouldn’t the sparse bundle cover the sorting, though. The OP gets to choose a FS on the transfer device and a FS for the sparse image. Perhaps this it the point @langLangC is making. I didn’t go into that in my answer.
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:22
@bmike I was referring to the directory listing on the virtual filesystem itself (i.e. what the thing mounting the sparsebundle sees); the OS itself probably doesn't care about the directory sort order of the sparsebundle's spans. :)
– fluffy
Mar 20 at 23:33
Yes - my +1 on your answer remains. You caught the real question where I missed it initially (or backed into it at the end of my answer.)
– bmike♦
Mar 21 at 1:49
Nice details. Wouldn’t the sparse bundle cover the sorting, though. The OP gets to choose a FS on the transfer device and a FS for the sparse image. Perhaps this it the point @langLangC is making. I didn’t go into that in my answer.
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:22
Nice details. Wouldn’t the sparse bundle cover the sorting, though. The OP gets to choose a FS on the transfer device and a FS for the sparse image. Perhaps this it the point @langLangC is making. I didn’t go into that in my answer.
– bmike♦
Mar 20 at 23:22
@bmike I was referring to the directory listing on the virtual filesystem itself (i.e. what the thing mounting the sparsebundle sees); the OS itself probably doesn't care about the directory sort order of the sparsebundle's spans. :)
– fluffy
Mar 20 at 23:33
@bmike I was referring to the directory listing on the virtual filesystem itself (i.e. what the thing mounting the sparsebundle sees); the OS itself probably doesn't care about the directory sort order of the sparsebundle's spans. :)
– fluffy
Mar 20 at 23:33
Yes - my +1 on your answer remains. You caught the real question where I missed it initially (or backed into it at the end of my answer.)
– bmike♦
Mar 21 at 1:49
Yes - my +1 on your answer remains. You caught the real question where I missed it initially (or backed into it at the end of my answer.)
– bmike♦
Mar 21 at 1:49
add a comment |
