Arsthbt

Multi tool use

Overlapping circles covering polygon

How to test the sharpness of a knife?

What does "tick" mean in this sentence?

What should be the ideal length of sentences in a blog post for ease of reading?

Language involving irrational number is not a CFL

Why the "ls" command is showing the permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?

Pre-Employment Background Check With Consent For Future Checks

How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?

What does the word 'upstream' mean in the context?

Is there a distance limit for minecart tracks?

Do I have to know the General Relativity theory to understand the concept of inertial frame?

Identifying "long and narrow" polygons in with PostGIS

Animation: customize bounce interpolation

How do I fix the group tension caused by my character stealing and possibly killing without provocation?

Telemetry for feature health

Limit max CPU usage SQL SERVER with WSRM

How do I prevent inappropriate ads from appearing in my game?

Determining multivariate least squares with constraint

How to write Quadratic equation with negative coefficient

In One Punch Man, is King actually weak?

Echo with obfuscation

Why would five hundred and five be same as one?

Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?

Check if object is null and return null

Is there a reason to prefer HFS+ over APFS for disk images in High Sierra and/or Mojave?

macOS partition not showing up after High Sierra updateCannot partition internal drive to install bootcamp because of APFS/High SierraHow to install and migrate to High Sierra on an encrypted FS?Using Carbon Copy Cloner 4 to create encrypted bootable HFS+ clones from APFS sourceTerminal command to force-install Mac OS High Sierra onto a specified drive?How to securely `shred` a file in Mojave/APFS?Upgrade from High Sierra to Mojave corrupted my partition table, unusable MBPUnable to format internal drive as APFS on 2018 MacBook ProDisk format for HDD with both APFS and HFS+ volumesTimemachine backups to Encrypted APFS partition. Checkbox turn off encryption

3

1

I'm creating small encrypted disk images (under 10 GB) to be used to secure data and transfer 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.

macos high-sierra mojave apfs hfs+

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

bmike♦

160k46287622

asked 1 hour ago

user11421user11421

162

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 | 

3

1

I'm creating small encrypted disk images (under 10 GB) to be used to secure data and transfer 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.

macos high-sierra mojave apfs hfs+

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

bmike♦

160k46287622

asked 1 hour ago

user11421user11421

162

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 data and transfer 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.

macos high-sierra mojave apfs hfs+

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

bmike♦

160k46287622

asked 1 hour ago

user11421user11421

162

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.

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

bmike♦

160k46287622

asked 1 hour ago

user11421user11421

162

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.

share|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

bmike♦

160k46287622

asked 1 hour ago

user11421user11421

162

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 1 hour ago

bmike♦

160k46287622

edited 1 hour ago

bmike♦

160k46287622

asked 1 hour ago

user11421user11421

162

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 1 hour ago

user11421user11421

162

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

3

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 42 mins ago

answered 1 hour 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
  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♦
  45 mins 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
  14 mins ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
  
  – LangLangC
  12 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

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.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour 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♦
  44 mins 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
  32 mins 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.

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 42 mins ago

answered 1 hour 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
  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♦
  45 mins 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
  14 mins ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
  
  – LangLangC
  12 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

3

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 42 mins ago

answered 1 hour 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
  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♦
  45 mins 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
  14 mins ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If the format for the image doesn't matter, but the real FS does, than that might be worthy of addition?
  
  – LangLangC
  12 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.

share|improve this answer

edited 42 mins ago

answered 1 hour ago

bmike♦bmike

160k46287622

share|improve this answer

edited 42 mins ago

answered 1 hour ago

bmike♦bmike

160k46287622

answered 1 hour ago

bmike♦bmike

160k46287622

answered 1 hour ago

bmike♦bmike

160k46287622

1

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.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour 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♦
  44 mins 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
  32 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

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.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour 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♦
  44 mins 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
  32 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.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

fluffyfluffy

435314

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

fluffyfluffy

435314

answered 1 hour ago

fluffyfluffy

435314

answered 1 hour ago

fluffyfluffy

435314