Transferring Older Time Machine Backups to a New Drive and Which Format to Use For New Time Machine Backups Drive

[Sossity]

I would like to transfer all my older time machine backups to a newer bigger capacity SSD drive that I will be using as my new time machine backup drive.

On my current older time machine drive formatted as mac os Extended Journaled, among the older backups are from when my macs had older OSes, like Mavericks, all the way to Mojave.

What file system should I format the new drive to be used for my time machine backups? the same as my older one as mac os extended journaled?

Or should I use a newer one such as APFS? and if I go with APFS, which of the four types of APFS should I choose?

Will I run into issues with the older backups that were backups of computers with older operating systems and moving them onto my new time machine backup SSD if I use APFS for the SSD drive?

Then what scheme should I use for the new backup drive?

 

[ThrowerGB]

APFS is designed for SSD drives. It doesn't need to take account of rotating disk sectors etc. It's more efficient on SSD drives that the older formats used on rotational disks. So if you're going to SSD, use APFS. But be careful, I was just reading a thread where the UI on Disk Utility led someone to setup their SSD drive in a manner that messed things up. The answer is to make sure you're formatting the entire physical device the same way and not just formatting a particular partition.
WRT what which APFS format to use, I tend to avoid case sensitive formats. To me, it's kind of un-Apple. With case sensitive, the opportunity to make a typing error is greater. But maybe that's a matter of taste. Perhaps case sensitive was introduced for compatibility with other operating systems, I don't know. That leaves a choice between encrypted or unencrypted. In the past I've runs into glitches with encrypted, so I avoid it. But if you're concerned about security of say, a portable drive, you might want to add that extra level of protection. But if you do, make sure you save the encryption key in a safe place that's not on the encrypted disk, or your machine for that matter. If you lose it you're hosed.
I avoid using SSD drives for Time Machine because the useful life of SSDs is shorter than rotational disks and rotating drives are still cheaper than SSDs. Certainly SSD's are much faster, but you probably don't need that speed for TM.
By the way, I use the TM's ability to use two drives in tandem. TM will back up to one of them and next time backup to the other. So if one of those two drives fails, all is not lost. You still have one good drive.

 

[Sossity]

APFS is designed for SSD drives. It doesn't need to take account of rotating disk sectors etc. It's more efficient on SSD drives that the older formats used on rotational disks. So if you're going to SSD, use APFS. But be careful, I was just reading a thread where the UI on Disk Utility led someone to setup their SSD drive in a manner that messed things up. The answer is to make sure you're formatting the entire physical device the same way and not just formatting a particular partition.
WRT what which APFS format to use, I tend to avoid case sensitive formats. To me, it's kind of un-Apple. With case sensitive, the opportunity to make a typing error is greater. But maybe that's a matter of taste. Perhaps case sensitive was introduced for compatibility with other operating systems, I don't know. That leaves a choice between encrypted or unencrypted. In the past I've runs into glitches with encrypted, so I avoid it. But if you're concerned about security of say, a portable drive, you might want to add that extra level of protection. But if you do, make sure you save the encryption key in a safe place that's not on the encrypted disk, or your machine for that matter. If you lose it you're hosed.
I avoid using SSD drives for Time Machine because the useful life of SSDs is shorter than rotational disks and rotating drives are still cheaper than SSDs. Certainly SSD's are much faster, but you probably don't need that speed for TM.
By the way, I use the TM's ability to use two drives in tandem. TM will back up to one of them and next time backup to the other. So if one of those two drives fails, all is not lost. You still have one good drive.

Really? I have read that SSDs have a longer life span, and use less power, no moving parts, but that is interesting, if that is the case than, why would anybody go to use SSDs for anything? so they are only good for speed?

 

[ThrowerGB]

Really? I have read that SSDs have a longer life span, and use less power, no moving parts, but that is interesting, if that is the case than, why would anybody go to use SSDs for anything? so they are only good for speed?

There are quite a few different web sites that say that SSDs have a longer life span. They generally support their point by arguing that there are no mechanical parts in SSDs. But the situation is not that simple. Take a look at http://www.datarecoveryspecialists.co.uk/blog/the-lifespan-of-hdds-vs-ssds for a more in depth analysis. Also look at some of the other items on that web site.
WRT to "are they only good for speed?". No, they provide other benefits, some of which you mention such as using less power. But SSDs are general smaller and lighter. Consider the case of mobile phones and laptops as an example. The designers are always looking to save space, make the devices lighter and more durable, provide more water protection, etc. There's a reason mobile phones didn't come out with disk drives.
I admit I'm a bit biased. I got burned when a Mac with a Fusion Drive began failing. It was the SSD part of the Fusion Drive that was the problem.

 

[HDFan]

I have read that SSDs have a longer life span, and use less power, no moving parts, but that is interesting, if that is the case than, why would anybody go to use SSDs for anything? so they are only good for speed?

Not necessarily true, depends on a lot of things. It also depends on how you define lifespan. Are you referring to working lifespan (TBW) or storage lifespan? The former is determined whether you are reading (small effect) or writing (large effect). Storage lifetime is determined by the cell leakage rate.

In terms of TBW a 1 TB Sandisk Pro (~$189) has a durability of 600 TBW. Seagate Ironwolf Pro Drives can be rated at 550 TBW a year, and they have a 5 year warranty. That's 2750 TBM vs 600 for the SSD almost 4.5x greater. The tradeoff is an SSD can be much faster.

A SSD makes sense in poor environments (travel, vibration, air quality, etc.) and as a boot disk or when you need fast access to data, such as video editing. They don't make sense when used for backups given their high cost and shorter storage lifetime.

Unfortunately the common misconception is that SSD's are superior, better technology, to HDs and so people buy them thinking they have purchased the best and latest when it is actually a poor decision in most of the cases I have seen.

 

[Sossity]

There are quite a few different web sites that say that SSDs have a longer life span. They generally support their point by arguing that there are no mechanical parts in SSDs. But the situation is not that simple. Take a look at http://www.datarecoveryspecialists.co.uk/blog/the-lifespan-of-hdds-vs-ssds for a more in depth analysis. Also look at some of the other items on that web site.
WRT to "are they only good for speed?". No, they provide other benefits, some of which you mention such as using less power. But SSDs are general smaller and lighter. Consider the case of mobile phones and laptops as an example. The designers are always looking to save space, make the devices lighter and more durable, provide more water protection, etc. There's a reason mobile phones didn't come out with disk drives.
I admit I'm a bit biased. I got burned when a Mac with a Fusion Drive began failing. It was the SSD part of the Fusion Drive that was the problem.

Ok, thanks, and I have aslo come across some information that is not good about SSDs, apparently they lose data if they are not powered on regularly, so they are no good for long term storage. II think I will be sticking with HDD drives for archiving.

 

[Sossity]

Not necessarily true, depends on a lot of things. It also depends on how you define lifespan. Are you referring to working lifespan (TBW) or storage lifespan? The former is determined whether you are reading (small effect) or writing (large effect). Storage lifetime is determined by the cell leakage rate.

In terms of TBW a 1 TB Sandisk Pro (~$189) has a durability of 600 TBW. Seagate Ironwolf Pro Drives can be rated at 550 TBW a year, and they have a 5 year warranty. That's 2750 TBM vs 600 for the SSD almost 4.5x greater. The tradeoff is an SSD can be much faster.

A SSD makes sense in poor environments (travel, vibration, air quality, etc.) and as a boot disk or when you need fast access to data, such as video editing. They don't make sense when used for backups given their high cost and shorter storage lifetime.

Unfortunately the common misconception is that SSD's are superior, better technology, to HDs and so people buy them thinking they have purchased the best and latest when it is actually a poor decision in most of the cases I have seen.

Yes, I have just read SSDs actually lose data over time if they are in long term storage.

 

[satcomer]

Yes, I have just read SSDs actually lose data over time if they are in long term storage.

That 's smart NAS are still a thing for archiving audio/videos!