That argument may hold good for storage which is in active use, such as boot disks and those containing working files, but appears less compelling in more static use, to contain relatively stable archives or backups in which there is limited turnover of files or data. The most compelling argument for retaining HFS+ is on rotating hard disks, because APFS can result in severe fragmentation, most importantly in the file system metadata, so causing degraded performance as SSDs don’t suffer those performance penalties, this could be a good reason for continuing to use HFS+ on hard disks, while switching SSDs to APFS. The only significant feature of HFS+ lacking in APFS is support for directory hard links, but they are seldom used outside Time Machine backups, and Time Machine now backs up to APFS volumes using a better method in any case. Among these are volume snapshots, sharing of free space between volumes inside the same container/partition, improved reliability thanks to copy-on-write, and special file types such as clones and sparse files. This article considers whether you should choose to continue using HFS+ or switch completely to APFS.īeing the more modern file system, APFS has many features that HFS+ lacks.
It’s common knowledge that HFS+ was developed primarily for use on hard disks, and APFS for solid-state drives. Monterey currently supports two native macOS file systems for general use: Macintosh Extended (HFS+) and Apple File System (APFS).
0 kommentar(er)
