Is there a reason to prefer HFS+ over APFS for disk images in High Sierra and/or Mojave?
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 2 hours ago
user11421user11421
163
New contributor
user11421 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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 2 hours ago
user11421user11421
163
New contributor
user11421 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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 2 hours ago
user11421user11421
163
New contributor
user11421 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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 2 hours ago
user11421user11421
163
New contributor
user11421 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
user11421user11421
163
New contributor
user11421 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 6 mins ago
user11421
asked 2 hours ago
user11421user11421
163
New contributor
user11421 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
user11421user11421
163
asked 2 hours ago
user11421user11421
163
163
New contributor
user11421 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user11421 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user11421 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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.
Now, within the sparse disk image, I can’t imagine you will be able to measure any performance difference between HFS+ and APFS since that filesystem is fully synthetic and depends only on the underlying writes for performance. The other technical details remain relevant for whatever embedded FS you chose inside the images.
answered 2 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
160k46287622
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
2 hours ago
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♦
1 hour ago
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
1 hour ago
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
1 hour ago
@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
8 mins ago
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 2 hours ago
fluffyfluffy
435314
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♦
1 hour ago
@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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "118"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
user11421 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fapple.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f354375%2fis-there-a-reason-to-prefer-hfs-over-apfs-for-disk-images-in-high-sierra-and-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
Now, within the sparse disk image, I can’t imagine you will be able to measure any performance difference between HFS+ and APFS since that filesystem is fully synthetic and depends only on the underlying writes for performance. The other technical details remain relevant for whatever embedded FS you chose inside the images.
answered 2 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
160k46287622
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
2 hours ago
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♦
1 hour ago
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
1 hour ago
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
1 hour ago
@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
8 mins ago
add a comment |
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.
Now, within the sparse disk image, I can’t imagine you will be able to measure any performance difference between HFS+ and APFS since that filesystem is fully synthetic and depends only on the underlying writes for performance. The other technical details remain relevant for whatever embedded FS you chose inside the images.
answered 2 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
160k46287622
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
2 hours ago
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♦
1 hour ago
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
1 hour ago
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
1 hour ago
@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
8 mins ago
add a comment |
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.
Now, within the sparse disk image, I can’t imagine you will be able to measure any performance difference between HFS+ and APFS since that filesystem is fully synthetic and depends only on the underlying writes for performance. The other technical details remain relevant for whatever embedded FS you chose inside the images.
answered 2 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
160k46287622
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.
Now, within the sparse disk image, I can’t imagine you will be able to measure any performance difference between HFS+ and APFS since that filesystem is fully synthetic and depends only on the underlying writes for performance. The other technical details remain relevant for whatever embedded FS you chose inside the images.
answered 2 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
160k46287622
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
160k46287622
answered 2 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
160k46287622
answered 2 hours ago
bmike♦bmike
160k46287622
160k46287622
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
2 hours ago
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♦
1 hour ago
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
1 hour ago
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
1 hour ago
@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
8 mins ago
add a comment |
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
2 hours ago
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♦
1 hour ago
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
1 hour ago
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
1 hour ago
@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
8 mins ago
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
2 hours ago
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
2 hours ago
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♦
1 hour ago
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♦
1 hour ago
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
1 hour ago
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
1 hour ago
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
1 hour ago
If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
– LangLangC
1 hour ago
@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
8 mins ago
@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
8 mins ago
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 2 hours ago
fluffyfluffy
435314
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♦
1 hour ago
@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
1 hour ago
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 2 hours ago
fluffyfluffy
435314
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♦
1 hour ago
@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
1 hour ago
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 2 hours ago
fluffyfluffy
435314
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 2 hours ago
fluffyfluffy
435314
answered 2 hours ago
fluffyfluffy
435314
answered 2 hours ago
fluffyfluffy
435314
answered 2 hours ago
fluffyfluffy
435314
435314
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♦
1 hour ago
@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
1 hour ago
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♦
1 hour ago
@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
1 hour ago
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♦
1 hour ago
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♦
1 hour ago
@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
1 hour ago
@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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
user11421 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user11421 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user11421 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user11421 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Different!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fapple.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f354375%2fis-there-a-reason-to-prefer-hfs-over-apfs-for-disk-images-in-high-sierra-and-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
