Hello all. I have an iMac (M1) and current HDDs purchased years ago are Mac OS extended. Just purchased a new HDD and wondering if i should stick with Mac OS extended or format new drive APFS. Drive will mostly store media and work with a Plex server. Thanks you!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
APFS or Mac OS extended for external HDD
- Thread starter kimndave
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I still use Mac OS Extended (Journaled) Plus (HFS+, Journaled HFS Plus) for external drives.
APFS is not that reliable https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/diskmanagement-disenter-error-49218.2384101/
APFS is not that reliable https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/diskmanagement-disenter-error-49218.2384101/
APFS is designed for SSD's but will also work with HDD's.
From Apple:
Apple File System is a new, modern file system for iOS, macOS, tvOS, and watchOS. It is optimized for Flash/SSD storage and features strong encryption, copy-on-write metadata, space sharing, cloning for files and directories, snapshots, fast directory sizing, atomic safe-save primitives, and improved file system fundamentals.
APFS replaces HFS+ as the default file system for iOS 10.3 and later, and macOS High Sierra and later.
Here's a recent article that puts into perspective the pros and cons of each: https://iboysoft.com/wiki/apfs-vs-mac-os-extended.html
That article should help you make an informed decision as to which way to go.
From Apple:
Apple File System is a new, modern file system for iOS, macOS, tvOS, and watchOS. It is optimized for Flash/SSD storage and features strong encryption, copy-on-write metadata, space sharing, cloning for files and directories, snapshots, fast directory sizing, atomic safe-save primitives, and improved file system fundamentals.
APFS replaces HFS+ as the default file system for iOS 10.3 and later, and macOS High Sierra and later.
Here's a recent article that puts into perspective the pros and cons of each: https://iboysoft.com/wiki/apfs-vs-mac-os-extended.html
That article should help you make an informed decision as to which way to go.
APFS is terrible for SSDs, hidden errors can reduce the speed of the SSD by more than half.
I discovered by accident that my SSD had "apfs_fs_alloc_count is not valid", whatever that means
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/disc-utility-warning.2376773/
I discovered by accident that my SSD had "apfs_fs_alloc_count is not valid", whatever that means
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/disc-utility-warning.2376773/
Based on my experience APFS is an improvement, in many ways, over hfs+. Running 6 devices that are APFS plus 4 ssd's and 2 hdd's formatted in APFS, for years with no problems, I don't see any reason to go back to HFS+. My experience with HFS+ was not stellar, in particular, I'm finding TimeMachine to be much more stable with APFS.
My one gripe with APFS is that external ssd's formatted in APFS, connected by UBS, can't access SMART status.
For others that might be meaningless, otherwise I'm not experiencing anything but positives.
Perhaps you're not aware of all the benefits of APFS, bogdanw. Check out Howard Oakley's articles. They cover APFS in great detail or at least as much detail as Apple will allow as Apple's very tight lipped when it comes to sharing documentation for APFS: https://eclecticlight.co/?s=apfs
Anyway, to each their own...
My one gripe with APFS is that external ssd's formatted in APFS, connected by UBS, can't access SMART status.
For others that might be meaningless, otherwise I'm not experiencing anything but positives.
Perhaps you're not aware of all the benefits of APFS, bogdanw. Check out Howard Oakley's articles. They cover APFS in great detail or at least as much detail as Apple will allow as Apple's very tight lipped when it comes to sharing documentation for APFS: https://eclecticlight.co/?s=apfs
Anyway, to each their own...
Reliability: APFS wins.
Flexibility: APFS wins. For example, multiple APFS volumes sharing a single container/partition.
Performance: Time Machine is much quicker on APFS. File copies between folders on the same APFS disk is almost instantaneous and doesn't take up disk space (due to 'clones'). Otherwise (e.g. for media storage) I have not noticed any difference between HFS+ and APFS.
Flexibility: APFS wins. For example, multiple APFS volumes sharing a single container/partition.
Performance: Time Machine is much quicker on APFS. File copies between folders on the same APFS disk is almost instantaneous and doesn't take up disk space (due to 'clones'). Otherwise (e.g. for media storage) I have not noticed any difference between HFS+ and APFS.
For a platter-based hard drive, use HFS+.
APFS can result in excessive fragmentation on platter-based drives.
Along with a lot of "disk thrashing".
Also...
With an HFS+ drive, you can still use 3rd-party apps to do disk maintenance (such as an occasional defragging), or data recovery software in an emergency.
Tools like that aren't available with APFS.
The only reason to use HFS+ with an HDD would be for something that absolutely requires it, such as a time machine backup. (But I don't use tm)
APFS can result in excessive fragmentation on platter-based drives.
Along with a lot of "disk thrashing".
Also...
With an HFS+ drive, you can still use 3rd-party apps to do disk maintenance (such as an occasional defragging), or data recovery software in an emergency.
Tools like that aren't available with APFS.
The only reason to use HFS+ with an HDD would be for something that absolutely requires it, such as a time machine backup. (But I don't use tm)
I just want to echo the sentiments of using Mac Journaled over APFS. My mom just upgraded to an M2 mini, and we have various external hard drives. The mechanical external drives had a lot of trouble, but we later learned it was because they were sleeping and tripping up the system.
I got her a new external NVME SSD, and we originally had it formatted in APFS. Because everyone online said it was superior to Mac Journaled for SSDs. Not the case at all. It was ejecting like crazy. And it eventually corrupted losing nearly half of a photo editing session. We've since formatted it in Mac Journaled, and now it's running fine. No issues.
So I don't like this APFS format. It just seems volatile and unstable. Obviously you have to use it on the system drive, because it won't let you use anything else. And I think in the newer Mac OSs they only let you use APFS for time machine, but we just use that on a separate smaller SSD.
Not to mention the speed of APFS seemed negligible to me. Mac Journaled seems just as fast.
I got her a new external NVME SSD, and we originally had it formatted in APFS. Because everyone online said it was superior to Mac Journaled for SSDs. Not the case at all. It was ejecting like crazy. And it eventually corrupted losing nearly half of a photo editing session. We've since formatted it in Mac Journaled, and now it's running fine. No issues.
So I don't like this APFS format. It just seems volatile and unstable. Obviously you have to use it on the system drive, because it won't let you use anything else. And I think in the newer Mac OSs they only let you use APFS for time machine, but we just use that on a separate smaller SSD.
Not to mention the speed of APFS seemed negligible to me. Mac Journaled seems just as fast.
If you are going to use it in:
APFS can use volumes while HFS+ (macOS extended journaled) can only use partitions...
You can watch WWDC 2017 and WWDC 2018 to know more about APFS and you can also check Apple Support articles...
- macOS 10.12 Sierra and older, use HFS+ (macOS extended journaled)
- macOS 10.13 High Sierra and newer, use APFS
APFS can use volumes while HFS+ (macOS extended journaled) can only use partitions...
You can watch WWDC 2017 and WWDC 2018 to know more about APFS and you can also check Apple Support articles...
As I posted above, I recommend APFS ONLY for those instances in which you HAVE TO use it, such as:
- internal boot drives that can't run anything else
- external time machine backups (if you use tm)
- certain other cloned backups (such as created by CarbonCopyCloner and SuperDuper)
- perhaps a few other instances.
Other than that...
HFS+ (Mac OS extended, journaling enabled, GUID partition format).
Primary REASON WHY:
If there's a problem with the drive, most (all?) 3rd party drive repair/recovery apps will work only with HFS+.
- internal boot drives that can't run anything else
- external time machine backups (if you use tm)
- certain other cloned backups (such as created by CarbonCopyCloner and SuperDuper)
- perhaps a few other instances.
Other than that...
HFS+ (Mac OS extended, journaling enabled, GUID partition format).
Primary REASON WHY:
If there's a problem with the drive, most (all?) 3rd party drive repair/recovery apps will work only with HFS+.
Ya indeed. I had to find a special app for the NVME APFS to try and recover photos. It didn't go well. The PSDs ended up cropped and had weird distortions. They were unrecoverable. HFS+ runs just as fast on the SSDs, so we're just gonna use that from now on except for the Time Machine SSD backup drive and the main system drive.