Best disk file format for new NVMe drive

[vpujols]

I’ve been reading around but then wanted to ask here.
Today I will be installing a new NVMe 512GB drive to my daughter’s MBA early 2015, it’s the 13” Mac.

im thinking about partitioning the drive in 2.
Main partition for the OS.
Second partition for storage.

her current SSD is merely 128GB and the original one that came with the laptop. She has about 8GB left.

So, I think the OS partition should be 128GB and the remaining for storage.
Thoughts?
Now, for the type of file format (I come from the Windows world), should I pick journal and then exFat for the storage partition?
Thoughts?

 

[hwojtek]

No.
You mean disk format, not file format.
Leave it a one big APFS partition, your partitioning proposition doesn't really make any sense and will only complicate things.

 

[vpujols]

Yes, I meant disk format.
Thanks.

why would it be better leaving the disk whole in one partition?
Just wanted to know since partitioning the disk as I mentioned would’ve been what I’d do on a Windows laptop.

thanks again.

 

[glenthompson]

You didn’t mention what version of MacOS she is running. That will be a factor. If running the recent versions with APFS available, use it as it can manage the drive better than she can. This isn’t Windows so that mindset doesn’t apply.

always use the native MacOS drive formats. Ex-fat is only used for thumb drives. You would lose a lot of functionality with ex-fat.

 

[vpujols]

You didn’t mention what version of MacOS she is running. That will be a factor. If running the recent versions with APFS available, use it as it can manage the drive better than she can. This isn’t Windows so that mindset doesn’t apply.

always use the native MacOS drive formats. Ex-fat is only used for thumb drives. You would lose a lot of functionality with ex-fat.

She's on Mojave 10.14.5 right now with APFS.

My thought was to start from fresh and install a fresh copy of Catalina on the new drive and then she can copy some files from the older drive. At one point I thought about using time machine to backup the drive and install on the new one but saw comments from people that sometimes that may be problematic?

 

[Stephen.R]

With APFS, if you want two volumes, you don't have to pick sizes up front - volumes within a single APFS container share the total space (you can set quotas and reserve amounts but otherwise they just use the space as required).

This means that if you wanted to have say a 'data' volume, to allow an easy "erase and re-install" approach, you can do so, and the two volumes (one for macOS, one for data) will just use the space they require, as they require it.


Now, whether having a second volume is useful to you/her, is a different question that's very subjective - but if you want to 'separate' data, APFS volumes, not partitions are the way to do it.
[automerge]1584809269[/automerge]
Also, to add: APFS volumes can also be added/removed later - so you can very much just install the SSD, do a 'default' install of Catalina on it, and once it's installed, open up disk utility and add an extra volume if you decide you want to do that.

 

[vpujols]

With APFS, if you want two volumes, you don't have to pick sizes up front - volumes within a single APFS container share the total space (you can set quotas and reserve amounts but otherwise they just use the space as required).

This means that if you wanted to have say a 'data' volume, to allow an easy "erase and re-install" approach, you can do so, and the two volumes (one for macOS, one for data) will just use the space they require, as they require it.


Now, whether having a second volume is useful to you/her, is a different question that's very subjective - but if you want to 'separate' data, APFS volumes, not partitions are the way to do it.
[automerge]1584809269[/automerge]
Also, to add: APFS volumes can also be added/removed later - so you can very much just install the SSD, do a 'default' install of Catalina on it, and once it's installed, open up disk utility and add an extra volume if you decide you want to do that.

Thanks, that helps.
Yes, would like 2 volumes to separate OS with the data, as you mentioned I like this approach in case I'd like a quick OS install knowing my data is on the 2nd volume.
I will go with APFS then for both volumes and use a quota up-front..

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Under Catalina macOS automatically creates separate APFS Volumes for System and Data. Don't do anything other than the standard Catalina installation, and let the OS do the rest. See this Apple support article: https://support.apple.com/HT210650

 

[Stephen.R]

Don't do anything other than the standard Catalina installation, and let the OS do the rest.

If the OP's goal is to be able to completely wipe the installed OS & Applications, that is not going to be possible if s/he follows your "advice".

Edit: and I should add, claims of "that isn't needed" are an opinion, and it's fine to hold that opinion, but it is just an opinion.

I don't bother with a second volume like the OP has mentioned, but I do wipe & reinstall when "upgrading" to a new release of macOS. I don't use the second volume as discussed because all my local-only data is stored on external SSDs/spinning rust drives, and the rest of my data is synced via iCloud Drive, so wiping the boot disk (both APFS volumes macOS sets up) doesn't result in a loss of any data for me.

 

[vpujols]

It's going to be a brand new NVMe drive to replace the current SSD drive, so the drive is completely empty and just want to start the OS from scratch on the new drive.

 

[Erehy Dobon]

why would it be better leaving the disk whole in one partition?
Just wanted to know since partitioning the disk as I mentioned would’ve been what I’d do on a Windows laptop.

I've used Wintel boxes over two decades and still have one at home and I never deliberately created separate partitions on a Windows drive.

The problem with creating multiple partitions is that inevitably one of them fills up, usually the most inconvenient one. As a partition reaches full capacity performance starts to degrade quickly. Then you are faced with the annoying system administration task of repartitioning the disk.

Unless you have a credible, deliberate reason for letting one partition fill up, leave the disk in (correction as noted below: separate partitions) one discrete partition. There are a few exceptions but basically if you know what those are, you wouldn't be asking this question.

Format the entire new drive as journalled, case-insensitive APFS, one partition. The macOS installer will do the rest -- and in the case of Catalina -- will repartition the drive accordingly.

 

[Stephen.R]

The problem with creating multiple partitions is that inevitably one of them fills up, usually the most inconvenient one.

Which is exactly why I suggested using APFS volumes.

All the benefits, no pre-sizing issue.

Unless you have a credible, deliberate reason for letting one partition fill up, leave the disk in separate partitions. There are a few exceptions but basically if you know what those are, you wouldn't be asking this question.

Im not sure if you mistyped and meant leave it in one partition but anyway.

The OP literally identified the reason s/he wants to do this.


Do people actually read the context before replying?

 

[Erehy Dobon]

I read the OP's reason. If you have to ask this type of question, the answer is no.

There are credible reasons to split a macOS drive into multiple partitions but this isn't one of them.

 

[Stephen.R]

but this isn't one of them

really? The ability to wipe the installed OS and install again without losing the data volume isn’t “credible”?

I like this approach in case I'd like a quick OS install

If you have to ask this type of question, the answer is no.

This type of throwaway line is getting tired.

 

[vpujols]

Thanks guys.
Going through the install right now, picked APFS. There are other APFS types and wasn't sure so picked just APFS.

 

[jparker402]

Confused but maybe no need to worry about it. I bought my MacBook Air with Sierra (I think), and gravitated through High Sierra, Mohave and now Catalina. Plus I have a variety of thumb drives, all of which I suppose I programmed for something. As I take it, APFS started in the middle of my MacBook Air's life. Is there anything I need to go back and do? Will my old programmed thumb drives still work without reprogramming them?

 

[ApfelKuchen]

If the OP's goal is to be able to completely wipe the installed OS & Applications, that is not going to be possible if s/he follows your "advice".

Edit: and I should add, claims of "that isn't needed" are an opinion, and it's fine to hold that opinion, but it is just an opinion.

I don't bother with a second volume like the OP has mentioned, but I do wipe & reinstall when "upgrading" to a new release of macOS. I don't use the second volume as discussed because all my local-only data is stored on external SSDs/spinning rust drives, and the rest of my data is synced via iCloud Drive, so wiping the boot disk (both APFS volumes macOS sets up) doesn't result in a loss of any data for me.

Fact: In this situation the OP is starting from a blank SSD. There is no installed OS and applications to wipe. My comment was completely in context.

Fact: I described the automatic behavior of the Catalina installer. It's not a matter of opinion that the Catalina installer creates separate system and data volumes. I supported my statement with an official-source reference. My "advice" was simply to allow the Catalina installer to do what it already does. At the end of the installation the OP will have separate volumes for OS and data/apps.

(Apple's support document doesn't make this clear, and Finder doesn't display the system and data volumes as separate entities, but viewing the Sharing & Permissions section of a Get Info shows that both the System and Library folders are read-only, while Applications is read/write. From this, we might infer that Applications is in the data volume, not the OS/boot volume.)

As with nearly any default behavior in computing, one can discuss/debate the pros and cons of overriding the default, but the default behavior itself is a matter of fact. To the best of my knowledge, there is no command line switch for overriding the creation of a read-only system volume in Catalina, so this isn't even a matter of debating whether to override that behavior - "default" is mandatory.

Opinion: I don't see why it would matter whether the OP was starting with the goal of completely wiping the installed OS & Applications," starting with a new, empty HD, or not wiping the drive at all and simply upgrading to Catalina from an older installation of macOS. In all cases, the Catalina installer is going to create separate system and data volumes.

Opinion: Finally... Part of the joy of computer geekdom is custom-crafting a solution that meets our personal requirements. To some, accepting default behavior/standard installation is unthinkable. We're individuals, right? We don't fit the cookie-cutter mold decided by Apple (or Microsoft, etc.). However, "standard installation" is designed to address the needs of a wide range of users. Is it a crime to say, "The standard approach will meet your needs" when there are no stated or apparent reasons why it would not meet those needs? It's not a matter of whether the standard approach meets your needs... it matters only that it meets the needs of the person asking the questions.

 

[Stephen.R]

In this situation the OP is starting from a blank SSD. There is no installed OS and applications to wipe. My comment was completely in context.

... You've missed the entire context of what OP was asking about.

The reason for splitting a disk (either via partitions, volumes, whatever) is to allow subsequent wipe+reinstall of the OS/Apps/extensions without affecting user data. The OP then confirms this is their goal:

I like this approach in case I'd like a quick OS install knowing my data is on the 2nd volume.

Fact: I described the automatic behavior of the Catalina installer. It's not a matter of opinion that the Catalina installer creates separate system and data volumes. I supported my statement with an official-source reference. My "advice" was simply to allow the Catalina installer to do what it already does. At the end of the installation the OP will have separate volumes for OS and data/apps.

Yet again, you've missed some context here.

The second volume it creates, "data" is not just data. It's anything the user might be expecting to install - applications, prefpanes, system extensions, etc etc. If the goal is, as stated above, to "wipe the OS and reinstall" the default split volumes macOS creates will not help you.

viewing the Sharing & Permissions section of a Get Info shows that both the System and Library folders are read-only

Welcome to POSIX permissions. The system /Library directory defaults to not giving users write access, but it's just regular filesystem permissions, not a read-only APFS volume.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no command line switch for overriding the creation of a read-only system volume in Catalina, so this isn't even a matter of debating whether to override that behavior - "default" is mandatory.

Nobody even remotely suggested what you're talking about, even if it were possible.

I don't see why it would matter whether the OP was starting with the goal of completely wiping the installed OS & Applications," starting with a new, empty HD, or not wiping the drive at all and simply upgrading to Catalina from an older installation of macOS. In all cases, the Catalina installer is going to create separate system and data volumes.

As I explained above, you missed the part where the OP's goal was to facilitate *future* reinstalls of the OS without losing data.

Is it a crime to say, "The standard approach will meet your needs" when there are no stated or apparent reasons why it would not meet those needs?

It's not a crime to say lots of things. But you clearly did not understand what the OP wanted to achieve, nor the finer details of how macOS 'split boot volume' works - and yet you feel the need to tell OP and myself, that you know better, and that "the defaults" will surely work for what OP wants to achieve.

It so happens that adding an APFS volume is a non-destructive task - it can be added without issue after install, but that doesn't mean "it isn't required, the defaults do what you want".

 

[albertaka]

regarding "Now, for the type of file format (I come from the Windows world), should I pick journal and then exFat for the storage partition?"
no
I a similar situation -
- I choose MacOS Extended. Then used create installmedia, this requires the MacOS Extended format... The installer then makes the partitions all by istself.
Maybe use Carbon CopyCloner . .

 

[hobowankenobi]

OP: Stick with the default config, if you are going with 10.15 or newer.

Technically, there are no units called partitions (not counting the EFI partition) in APFS that are usable, only Containers and Volumes. For the sake of discussion, volumes are mostly analogous to partitions.

In the most recent OS version, the file system/boot disk layout has been tweaked so that there is no need to separate user data manually; it is already separated automatically. A default install creates 5 Volumes, 2 of which are visible.

Many veteran Mac users will be surprised; the old tried and true ways of formatting a boot disk are now officially dead and buried. We should have nice funeral to celebrate its passing.

 

[satcomer]

Apple Macs aren’t allowed to Write to the Microsoft format of NTFS, only read it! Do format that external HFS+ in you are using with your Mac only! If you plan to use it on several Other machines try FAT32 format!

 

[Yebubbleman]

I’ve been reading around but then wanted to ask here.
Today I will be installing a new NVMe 512GB drive to my daughter’s MBA early 2015, it’s the 13” Mac.

im thinking about partitioning the drive in 2.
Main partition for the OS.
Second partition for storage.

her current SSD is merely 128GB and the original one that came with the laptop. She has about 8GB left.

So, I think the OS partition should be 128GB and the remaining for storage.
Thoughts?
Now, for the type of file format (I come from the Windows world), should I pick journal and then exFat for the storage partition?
Thoughts?

No reason to partition the boot drive. Not even sure there's a benefit to doing that in Windows these days either. And APFS is the partition format for currently supported macOS releases on that Mac. The only reason to do macOS Extended (Journaled) instead would be if that Mac has never updated past macOS Sierra (10.12.x).

 

[Audit13]

No reason to partition the boot drive. Not even sure there's a benefit to doing that in Windows these days either. And APFS is the partition format for currently supported macOS releases on that Mac. The only reason to do macOS Extended (Journaled) instead would be if that Mac has never updated past macOS Sierra (10.12.x).

MacBooks must be running High Sierra or newer to work with an internal NVMe drive unless the drive can be formatted using 512 Mb clusters.

 

[hobowankenobi]

No reason to partition the boot drive. Not even sure there's a benefit to doing that in Windows these days either. And APFS is the partition format for currently supported macOS releases on that Mac. The only reason to do macOS Extended (Journaled) instead would be if that Mac has never updated past macOS Sierra (10.12.x).

True...but when installing 10.14 or 10.15 (and I expect 11), the installer will update the formatting anyway, so nothing the user has to do, or worry about doing wrong if they start with a HFS+ volume.

 

[Yebubbleman]

True...but when installing 10.14 or 10.15 (and I expect 11), the installer will update the formatting anyway, so nothing the user has to do, or worry about doing wrong if they start with a HFS+ volume.

Right, but there's no reason to do that if the Mac has already had some form of 10.13 previously. Plus, it saves a step and is therefore quicker.