APFS, Time Machine and Big Sur

[bdart2]

With the news that Big Sur will support Time Machine in APFS - I had the following issue arise today.

I just bought a new MBP a few weeks ago and today bought a WD easystore 8 TB HDD for use as both a time machine and to store pictures and videos - one partition for TM and the other for other files.

I was just about to reformat and started looking at the format types and saw APFS as the preferred format for newer OSs. Then I saw that Time Machine is not compatible with APFS, but would be in Big Sur.

Question which one should I do:

1.) Format the new HDD in MacOS Journaled and just partition part of the drive for Time Machine and the other for files?

or


2.) Format an old spare drive to MacOS journaled and use it as a TM backup now and now Format the new HDD in APFS and partition the drive as above and wait to move the TM backups from the old drive to the new drive once I install Big Sur later this year?

thanks in advance.

 

[cmaier]

There doesn’t seem to be any real advantage to using APFS for a time machine drive, so I’d just ignore that it’s coming.

 

[bdart2]

There doesn’t seem to be any real advantage to using APFS for a time machine drive, so I’d just ignore that it’s coming.

Right but I am going to use it for both TM and a other files.

 

[cmaier]

Right but I am going to use it for both TM and a other files.

Still not much advantage really, is there?

 

[bdart2]

Still not much advantage really, is there?

I don't know, I am looking for advice on a help forum.

 

[cmaier]

I don't know, I am looking for advice on a help forum.

Oh, sorry. I didn’t undertstand where you were coming from.

Generally speaking, there isn’t a ton of advantage to using APFS drives externally. They have some nice features, but they are also poorly documented which means that tools like carbon copy clones and the like have occasional issues with them. Personally none of my external drives are APFS-formatted. Maybe some day. But the advantages are so Slight it‘s not something I worry about.

If they change time machine to take advantage of its built-in-cloning stuff and the like, that may make it worth it, but so far we have little information about how APFS is used by time machine.

 

[bdart2]

Oh, sorry. I didn’t undertstand where you were coming from.

Generally speaking, there isn’t a ton of advantage to using APFS drives externally. They have some nice features, but they are also poorly documented which means that tools like carbon copy clones and the like have occasional issues with them. Personally none of my external drives are APFS-formatted. Maybe some day. But the advantages are so Slight it‘s not something I worry about.

If they change time machine to take advantage of its built-in-cloning stuff and the like, that may make it worth it, but so far we have little information about how APFS is used by time machine.

thank you, this is helpful.

Anybody else have a thought either way?

 

[Madhatter32]

When I looked at this issue with High Sierra I learned that the APFS formatting is beneficial for SSD drives. It more efficient evidently. So, you may want to consider that formatting if your external is an SSD. However, for most people still using HDDs, I think the extended journal is still the best formatting to use unless I learn otherwise from Carbon Copy Cloner, Super Duper or Apple itself.

 

[bdart2]

I am going to do Mac OS journal. thanks all

 

[Blowback]

I am going to do Mac OS journal. thanks all

Go to Bombich Software...makers of Carbon Copy Cloner...they have loads of info and write-ups concerning Mac backups as they pertain to the workings of the APFS structure. May be well worth it......

 

[Analog Kid]

Oh, sorry. I didn’t undertstand where you were coming from.

Generally speaking, there isn’t a ton of advantage to using APFS drives externally. They have some nice features, but they are also poorly documented which means that tools like carbon copy clones and the like have occasional issues with them. Personally none of my external drives are APFS-formatted. Maybe some day. But the advantages are so Slight it‘s not something I worry about.

If they change time machine to take advantage of its built-in-cloning stuff and the like, that may make it worth it, but so far we have little information about how APFS is used by time machine.

I’m pretty sure they’ll make use of the integrwted snapshot functionality which should speed up the backup times and be generally more reliable than the tree of hardlinks they’re using now.

Either way though, I’d expect Apple to reach in and change your TM to APFS when the time comes, regardless of how you format it today just like they reach in to futz with Photos libraries and change your boot drive format.

 

[cmaier]

I’m pretty sure they’ll make use of the integrwted snapshot functionality which should speed up the backup times and be generally more reliable than the tree of hardlinks they’re using now.

Either way though, I’d expect Apple to reach in and change your TM to APFS when the time comes, regardless of how you format it today just like they reach in to futz with Photos libraries and change your boot drive format.

Could be. Of course that only works for directly-connected drives, and not network-connected drives.

 

[bdart2]

Go to Bombich Software...makers of Carbon Copy Cloner...they have loads of info and write-ups concerning Mac backups as they pertain to the workings of the APFS structure. May be well worth it......

I checked it out and it is all greek to me. do you think APFS is the way to go?

 

[Analog Kid]

Could be. Of course that only works for directly-connected drives, and not network-connected drives.

Which is a shame because I've got a large TM backup to a Synology unit that is nothing but pain right now.

I checked it out and it is all greek to me. do you think APFS is the way to go?

Personally, I tend to make my tech decisions based largely on what I need at the moment because even when I try to plan ahead the world has changed enough by the time I get there that I'd wished I'd done something else.

Even if you're an early adopter, you've got a few months before Big Sur drops. If it were me, I'd use the drive however was convenient for me today, and I'd keep the old drive around in case I needed to do some file shuffling when the new OS comes around. Everybody has their own philosophy on these things though.

 

[bdart2]

Which is a shame because I've got a large TM backup to a Synology unit that is nothing but pain right now.



Personally, I tend to make my tech decisions based largely on what I need at the moment because even when I try to plan ahead the world has changed enough by the time I get there that I'd wished I'd done something else.

Even if you're an early adopter, you've got a few months before Big Sur drops. If it were me, I'd use the drive however was convenient for me today, and I'd keep the old drive around in case I needed to do some file shuffling when the new OS comes around. Everybody has their own philosophy on these things though.

if I format the new drive in hfs and create a partition for Time Machine can I later move those Time Machine backups to an APFS formatted drive?

 

[cmaier]

Which is a shame because I've got a large TM backup to a Synology unit that is nothing but pain right now.

I have two synology boxes (3612 and 2419) that my backups rotate over
[automerge]1593310363[/automerge]

if I format the new drive in hfs and create a partition for Time Machine can I later move those Time Machine backups to an APFS formatted drive?

We don’t know yet.

 

[Analog Kid]

if I format the new drive in hfs and create a partition for Time Machine can I later move those Time Machine backups to an APFS formatted drive?

I don't know for sure, it depends on how Apple handles the new TM format, but while it's possible to move backups from drive to drive today it's not a simple process.

One possibility is that Apple converts your TM to APFS in place. Another would be to keep using the HFS+ formatted drive for backups.

It's just as likely though that you would just want to start over at that point. It's a backup, after all. If you were forced to wipe and backup to the same drive there would be a brief period, maybe, where you don't have a backup. If you keep that old drive around, you can backup to it first, and then reformat the new drive and go.

 

[bdart2]

I don't know for sure, it depends on how Apple handles the new TM format, but while it's possible to move backups from drive to drive today it's not a simple process.

One possibility is that Apple converts your TM to APFS in place. Another would be to keep using the HFS+ formatted drive for backups.

It's just as likely though that you would just want to start over at that point. It's a backup, after all. If you were forced to wipe and backup to the same drive there would be a brief period, maybe, where you don't have a backup. If you keep that old drive around, you can backup to it first, and then reformat the new drive and go.

In disk utility can I create different files structures on the new external hard drive after reformatting.

i.e. 3TB HFS partition for TM and 5TB APFS partition for file storage?

 

[nicho]

There doesn’t seem to be any real advantage to using APFS for a time machine drive, so I’d just ignore that it’s coming.

My best guess would be that it means nothing in 11.0 and is laying the groundwork for something cool (some hybrid of time machine/CCC functionality with snapshots) in 11.1 in 2021.

 

[cmaier]

My best guess would be that it means nothing in 11.0 and is laying the groundwork for something cool (some hybrid of time machine/CCC functionality with snapshots) in 11.1 in 2021.

There are indications that it may already be there, though apple hasn’t yet answered

 

[Analog Kid]

I have two synology boxes (3612 and 2419) that my backups rotate over

I rotate between an 1815+ and a 4 drive OWC Thunderbolt array. My combined backup (it's pulling in a few external drives as well) is a bit over 8TB. The direct attach is pretty responsive and completes each incremental in a reasonable time. The Synology backup takes forever to complete. For the longest time I though it was just refusing to work, but it looks like it took hours to finish some sort of internal bookkeeping after each backup and won't accept another until it finishes. So I'm getting 1 backup a day to the NAS, and hourly to the DAS.

I was hoping for better, but it's just the backup backup so not the end of the world. I haven't had time to dive in deep looking for configuration problems. Works fine for the other machines hitting it.

In disk utility can I create different files structures on the new external hard drive after reformatting.

i.e. 3TB HFS partition for TM and 5TB APFS partition for file storage?

Yes, you can. I just reformatted a Samsung T7 with an APFS container for 1TB and a Mac OS Extended (Journaled) partition with 1TB.

 

[HDFan]

WD easystore 8 TB HDD

Don't know about Big Sur, but there are a lot of posts about NOT using APFS for hard disks. It is designed for SSDs. All of those links cause HD problems due to all of the extra seeks, which is not a problem with SSDs.

 

[cmaier]

I rotate between an 1815+ and a 4 drive OWC Thunderbolt array. My combined backup (it's pulling in a few external drives as well) is a bit over 8TB. The direct attach is pretty responsive and completes each incremental in a reasonable time. The Synology backup takes forever to complete. For the longest time I though it was just refusing to work, but it looks like it took hours to finish some sort of internal bookkeeping after each backup and won't accept another until it finishes. So I'm getting 1 backup a day to the NAS, and hourly to the DAS.

I was hoping for better, but it's just the backup backup so not the end of the world. I haven't had time to dive in deep looking for configuration problems. Works fine for the other machines hitting it.



Yes, you can. I just reformatted a Samsung T7 with an APFS container for 1TB and a Mac OS Extended (Journaled) partition with 1TB.

I have many Tb of non-time machine data on my synology boxes. I use one as the master, and it syncs nightly to the other. I used to use the built-in apps for that for many years - they take forever and provide no status. I switched to using carbon copy cloner running on my server to manage it. Much nicer. For some reason faster, too.

At one point i had a synology engineer remote into my box looking into why it was so unreliable and slow with backups, and he never figured it out.

 

[Blowback]

I have many Tb of non-time machine data on my synology boxes. I use one as the master, and it syncs nightly to the other. I used to use the built-in apps for that for many years - they take forever and provide no status. I switched to using carbon copy cloner running on my server to manage it. Much nicer. For some reason faster, too.

At one point i had a synology engineer remote into my box looking into why it was so unreliable and slow with backups, and he never figured it out.

CCC...Carbon Copy Cloner...is the way to go. I first used it in the early '90s (?) and just recently returned. Also, when you email them for an issue you get a prompt response. Good Advice.

 

[Analog Kid]

CCC...Carbon Copy Cloner...is the way to go. I first used it in the early '90s (?) and just recently returned. Also, when you email them for an issue you get a prompt response. Good Advice.

I have many Tb of non-time machine data on my synology boxes. I use one as the master, and it syncs nightly to the other. I used to use the built-in apps for that for many years - they take forever and provide no status. I switched to using carbon copy cloner running on my server to manage it. Much nicer. For some reason faster, too.

At one point i had a synology engineer remote into my box looking into why it was so unreliable and slow with backups, and he never figured it out.

I do like the historical look back of Time Machine, though. I use CCC when I need to make a dedicated copy-- I've got a 2013 MP that needs service, so I'll CCC the internal storage to that T7 drive, wipe the drive when I bring the MP in for service, and then restore the CCC copy.

I haven't gone through the hassle of dealing with Synology on this issue, but I suspect the problem is that a TM backup is a huge number of little files which is not well suited to the type of asymmetric array Synology uses. No RAID likes lots of little files, but I have an array of 4 identical disks in my OWC box and it's probably easier to handle with simple striping than it is with whatever games you need to play to spread access, parity and redundancy across drives of different sizes and speeds.