Partition external HD already in use by Time Machine?

[mujana]

(on macOS Sequioa/ Mac Mini M4 Pro)

At the moment I use a 10Tb external hard disk (LaCie d2), for both Time Machine and (photo) files that I moved from my Mac Mini internal SSD (separate folders). This external HD is not partitioned!
I cannot delete any images from those separate folders (it says I have no permission to do so, despite read/write permission set). That (still) bothers me. I’ve read, that removing files from an external HD that is also used by Time Machine is “not possible” (?). Not sure if this is true though.

Now I have the idea that, by partitioning that external drive, I could keep Time Machine backups separated from the folders containing images / those I created by moving them from my internal Mac Mini SSD.
I do not know if this is true.
Can someone please tell me if this is correct?

And if so, how can I partition this external HD, without loosing Time Machine backups and/or separate folders with data/images/etc. on it?

Please keep it simple; I’m not technically savvy at all!

Thank you!

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

With APFS you use volumes, not partitions; much more flexible. You would only partition the disk if you wanted different file systems in each partition.

 

[mujana]

With APFS you use volumes, not partitions; much more flexible. You would only partition the disk if you wanted different file systems in each partition.

Thnxs Nick, but wouldn’t I then “eat” Time Machine the free space of the whole disk..eventually…if folders and Time Machine share the disk? There seem to be no “hard borders” to limit a Time Machine Volume?

 

[Lettermanian]

Maybe I'm not understanding the whole situation, but it seems to me that if you have an M4 Pro, it's quite new, and won't have a huge backup history yet. Can you not simply move the pictures folders back to the Mini's internal drive temporarily, then erase the 10TB external drive, set it up the way you want to with two partitions, and start over? That way you could setup a Time Machine partition (say 2TB or so) formatted APFS, and then have an 8TB partition for photos/videos etc for easy access. That partition could be formatted ExFAT for cross-compatibility with windows if ever necessary. Again, unless I'm missing something, that would seem to be a very workable solution with what you have already.

I’m used to let Time Machine do its thing and to drag and drop (move), files to external. Never shared with any Windows computer (but still an idea). I understand that APFS format is fine for Time Machine (even on external hard drives). If partitioning, would a second partition also be fine as APFS?

I am no expert on these issues, as evidenced by my own questions in this forum Based on my understanding and experience though, partitions are basically like two separate drives on one disk. One partition needs to be an Apple-only format for Time Machine (APFS), but the other one can be any format that works with Mac OS. I have had no issues with my ExFAT external drives over numerous years, and it just happens to be more compatible with Windows if the need is ever there to use a Windows PC. It seems from searching various forums online that like there are opinions on which format is best for HDD's, but I can only say that ExFAT has worked fine for me. I have a 6TB Seagate HDD that I use to store all my photo and video files on in my own filing system, for easy compatibility with Windows if necessary (for instance, if I were to pass away, a family member would be able to access the files from their computer without issue). I also have a 3TB Seagate HDD formatted Mac OS Extended because I use it as my Apple Photos Library (see pics below).

Drop files / images there from internal, but also work on them and even remove them if I like to?

Yes

Maybe that second partition in extended Journaled or exFAT? Any advantages/ disadvantages, or doesn’t it matter at all?

See above

Also….first set up the whole external HD in APFS? And after that, partitioning? Or first extended journaled or ExFAT and after that, partitioning?

I don't know if it's necessary, but I would probably do this in these steps:

- Open Disk Utility, select the drive, then click on Erase. It is here that you will have to rename the disk and set the new format. Create a name for the TM Backup, choose APFS, then Apply (obviously before you do this make sure you have copied everything off the disk that you need/want, because it will be completely erased).

Once the erase process has completed, Use Disk Utility again to partition:

- Select the drive, click on Partition, click on + , the Disk Utility will split the drive into two halves. It will keep the TM Backup the way it was. The other half should be highlighted in blue and named "Untitled". Then under Partition Information, rename the drive and select the format. You can also then select the size of the partition in TB, GB, etc. Once selected, click on Apply. After that the disk should work practically as two separate disks. I usually run First aid after all the formatting is done; don't know if it's necessary, but my OCD likes it After all that, set up the TM partition in Time Machine to your preferences, and you should be all good to go. Of course the first backup will take a while, but subsequent backups will be faster.


A 3TB HDD that I have formatted as my external Apple Photos Library, after clicking on "Partition". It is formatted Mac OS Extended.


Disk Utility after clicking on "+". I can rename, reformat, and resize the Untitled partition.

--
The grass isn't always greener, unless you shoot Velvia.

 

[mujana]

Maybe I'm not understanding the whole situation, but it seems to me that if you have an M4 Pro, it's quite new, and won't have a huge backup history yet. Can you not simply move the pictures folders back to the Mini's internal drive temporarily, then erase the 10TB external drive, set it up the way you want to with two partitions, and start over? That way you could setup a Time Machine partition (say 2TB or so) formatted APFS, and then have an 8TB partition for photos/videos etc for easy access. That partition could be formatted ExFAT for cross-compatibility with windows if ever necessary. Again, unless I'm missing something, that would seem to be a very workable solution with what you have already.

I’m used to let Time Machine do its thing and to drag and drop (move), files to external. Never shared with any Windows computer (but still an idea). I understand that APFS format is fine for Time Machine (even on external hard drives). If partitioning, would a second partition also be fine as APFS?

I am no expert on these issues, as evidenced by my own questions in this forum Based on my understanding and experience though, partitions are basically like two separate drives on one disk. One partition needs to be an Apple-only format for Time Machine (APFS), but the other one can be any format that works with Mac OS. I have had no issues with my ExFAT external drives over numerous years, and it just happens to be more compatible with Windows if the need is ever there to use a Windows PC. It seems from searching various forums online that like there are opinions on which format is best for HDD's, but I can only say that ExFAT has worked fine for me. I have a 6TB Seagate HDD that I use to store all my photo and video files on in my own filing system, for easy compatibility with Windows if necessary (for instance, if I were to pass away, a family member would be able to access the files from their computer without issue). I also have a 3TB Seagate HDD formatted Mac OS Extended because I use it as my Apple Photos Library (see pics below).

Drop files / images there from internal, but also work on them and even remove them if I like to?

Yes

Maybe that second partition in extended Journaled or exFAT? Any advantages/ disadvantages, or doesn’t it matter at all?

See above

Also….first set up the whole external HD in APFS? And after that, partitioning? Or first extended journaled or ExFAT and after that, partitioning?

I don't know if it's necessary, but I would probably do this in these steps:

- Open Disk Utility, select the drive, then click on Erase. It is here that you will have to rename the disk and set the new format. Create a name for the TM Backup, choose APFS, then Apply (obviously before you do this make sure you have copied everything off the disk that you need/want, because it will be completely erased).

Once the erase process has completed, Use Disk Utility again to partition:

- Select the drive, click on Partition, click on + , the Disk Utility will split the drive into two halves. It will keep the TM Backup the way it was. The other half should be highlighted in blue and named "Untitled". Then under Partition Information, rename the drive and select the format. You can also then select the size of the partition in TB, GB, etc. Once selected, click on Apply. After that the disk should work practically as two separate disks. I usually run First aid after all the formatting is done; don't know if it's necessary, but my OCD likes it After all that, set up the TM partition in Time Machine to your preferences, and you should be all good to go. Of course the first backup will take a while, but subsequent backups will be faster.


A 3TB HDD that I have formatted as my external Apple Photos Library, after clicking on "Partition". It is formatted Mac OS Extended.


Disk Utility after clicking on "+". I can rename, reformat, and resize the Untitled partition.

--
The grass isn't always greener, unless you shoot Velvia.

Thnxs again!

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

You can set a quota, i.e. a maximum volume size, when you create the volume. This doesn't reserve space for the volume, just means it can't grow bigger than the set size.

 

[mujana]

You can set a quota, i.e. a maximum volume size, when you create the volume. This doesn't reserve space for the volume, just means it can't grow bigger than the set size.

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Volumes are an APFS thing. If you want ExFAT you have to partition.

 

[mujana]

Volumes are an APFS thing. If you want ExFAT you have to partition.

Ok. At the moment I'm investigating the possibility of a separate external hard disk (4-6Tb), only for Time Machine backups. And then a SSD (4Tb), only for files/documents/image folders/etc. Both permanently attached to my Mac mini M4. My Mac Mini M4 has 2Tb SSD. Thinking about "the best" /advisable formatting for both drives.

- both APFS? Uniformity sounds good, but possibly there are pitfalls when using APFS on external hard disk but only for Time Machine (?).

- APFS for external SSD and extended (journaled) for external HD?

- (probably not best?) Both hard disk and SSD in Mac OS extended (journaled)

I keep reading, that for an external HD, extended (journaled) is very much recommended (faster / safer / less problems/?), and for SSD APFS is. My Mac mini M4 Pro is (ofcourse) APFS.

I know Apple recommends APFS, but there seem to be many users, who think otherwise, and experiencing "problems" with APFS on external hard drives. I know Time Machine does not need high speed.

What also puzzles me, is whether I can use existing Time Machine backups on an Extended (journaled) formatted external hard disk,.....to do a recovery. If not, what good are these backups? I still have Time Machine backups in macOS extended (journaled).

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Volumes are an APFS thing. If you want ExFAT you have to partition.

Ok. At the moment I'm investigating the possibility of a separate external hard disk (4-6Tb), only for Time Machine backups. And then a SSD (4Tb), only for files/documents/image folders/etc. Both permanently attached to my Mac mini M4. My Mac Mini M4 has 2Tb SSD. Thinking about "the best" /advisable formatting for both drives.

- both APFS? Uniformity sounds good, but possibly there are pitfalls when using APFS on external hard disk but only for Time Machine (?).

That's what I (would) do. Time Machine uses APFS snapshots. For a data disk I would value the benefits of APFS over any shortcomings which I have personally never experienced.

There's a comparison here .

<snip>

What also puzzles me, is whether I can use existing Time Machine backups on an Extended (journaled) formatted external hard disk,.....to do a recovery. If not, what good are these backups? I still have Time Machine backups in macOS extended (journaled).

As Lettermanian indicated, the backups from your previous machine won't be associated with the new one; Time Machine will start a new backup set. You can - maybe you have - use tmutil to associated the old backups with the new machine, but if not you can only migrate data from the backup to the new computer, not restore.

 

[mujana]

Volumes are an APFS thing. If you want ExFAT you have to partition.

Ok. At the moment I'm investigating the possibility of a separate external hard disk (4-6Tb), only for Time Machine backups. And then a SSD (4Tb), only for files/documents/image folders/etc. Both permanently attached to my Mac mini M4. My Mac Mini M4 has 2Tb SSD. Thinking about "the best" /advisable formatting for both drives.

- both APFS? Uniformity sounds good, but possibly there are pitfalls when using APFS on external hard disk but only for Time Machine (?).

That's what I (would) do. Time Machine uses APFS snapshots. For a data disk I would value the benefits of APFS over any shortcomings which I have personally never experienced.

There's a comparison here .

<snip>

What also puzzles me, is whether I can use existing Time Machine backups on an Extended (journaled) formatted external hard disk,.....to do a recovery. If not, what good are these backups? I still have Time Machine backups in macOS extended (journaled).

As Lettermanian indicated, the backups from your previous machine won't be associated with the new one; Time Machine will start a new backup set. You can - maybe you have - use tmutil to associated the old backups with the new machine, but if not you can only migrate data from the backup to the new computer, not restore.

So I still can migrate data from inside a 2 year old Time Machine backup to my new system?

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Migration Assistant will only use the latest version of your user data.

The command line tmutil can do more with TimeMachine backups, but you'd have to learn how it works ('man tmutil' in a terminal window, for a start)

 

[mujana]

Migration Assistant will only use the latest version of your user data.

The command line tmutil can do more with TimeMachine backups, but you'd have to learn how it works ('man tmutil' in a terminal window, for a start)

Thnxs Nick. I might as well throw away all Time Machine backups from the past then (Mac OS Extended (journaled) file format), when I change to APFS on new external HD and external SSD..

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Migration Assistant will only use the latest version of your user data.

The command line tmutil can do more with TimeMachine backups, but you'd have to learn how it works ('man tmutil' in a terminal window, for a start)

Thnxs Nick. I might as well throw away all Time Machine backups from the past then (Mac OS Extended (journaled) file format), when I change to APFS on new external HD and external SSD..

The filesystem isn't the issue, it's that the backup is tied to a specific machine.

tmutil inheritbackup

 

[NicholasD]

Like I said, I'd have to get hands-on to investigate your problem and might not be able to resolve it even then.

APFS works fine for me on HDDs. It has some advantages, the most obvious being the ability to create separate volumes that dynamically share the spare space on the disk.

Various people around the web report/talk about issues with APFS on an HDD; some may be talking about early versions of APFS, some may be scaremongering, some may have found real drawbacks. Since I have no way of judging the competence or honesty of these netizens, I prefer to trust my own experience and the fact that Apple support APFS on HDD.

Thnxs again Nick. Good to know that APFS works on hard drives as well. I'll read more about that (disadvantages/advantages and user reports)

I use a spinning hard disk for Time Machine backups with no ill effect. I've also seen reports from netizens suggesting potential problems - here's one from Eclectic Light that addresses APFS. This and the referenced articles provide plenty of information (much goes over my head). Many of the issues relate to fragmentation on spinning disks. I suspect periodic incremental Time Machine backups present a much different read/write load than a primary system/data hard drive.

After updating to a Studio a year or so ago, I made the decision to replace all my spinning hard drives with SSDs. Storage, archive, and my primary backup system (CCC) have been changed over - Time Machine is the last one but I see it as low priority. I have less than 3 TB of image data which makes this more practical and cost effective than someone with multiples of that.

Nick

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

Like I said, I'd have to get hands-on to investigate your problem and might not be able to resolve it even then.

APFS works fine for me on HDDs. It has some advantages, the most obvious being the ability to create separate volumes that dynamically share the spare space on the disk.

Various people around the web report/talk about issues with APFS on an HDD; some may be talking about early versions of APFS, some may be scaremongering, some may have found real drawbacks. Since I have no way of judging the competence or honesty of these netizens, I prefer to trust my own experience and the fact that Apple support APFS on HDD.

Thnxs again Nick. Good to know that APFS works on hard drives as well. I'll read more about that (disadvantages/advantages and user reports)

I use a spinning hard disk for Time Machine backups with no ill effect. I've also seen reports from netizens suggesting potential problems - here's one from Eclectic Light that addresses APFS. This and the referenced articles provide plenty of information (much goes over my head). Many of the issues relate to fragmentation on spinning disks. I suspect periodic incremental Time Machine backups present a much different read/write load than a primary system/data hard drive.

In reading through eclectic light article -recent- the difference way APSC and HFS+ stores the blocks of data and then retrieves that data when using SSD or HDs the problem that arises is in fragmentation over time with the HD. SSDs can retrieve fragmented data with no problem but HDs become more and more fragmented to the point where, over a few years of storage, the HDs no longer function in retrieving data because it has become too fragmented..

After updating to a Studio a year or so ago, I made the decision to replace all my spinning hard drives with SSDs. Storage, archive, and my primary backup system (CCC) have been changed over - Time Machine is the last one but I see it as low priority. I have less than 3 TB of image data which makes this more practical and cost effective than someone with multiples of that.

Nick

 

[mujana]

Like I said, I'd have to get hands-on to investigate your problem and might not be able to resolve it even then.

APFS works fine for me on HDDs. It has some advantages, the most obvious being the ability to create separate volumes that dynamically share the spare space on the disk.

Various people around the web report/talk about issues with APFS on an HDD; some may be talking about early versions of APFS, some may be scaremongering, some may have found real drawbacks. Since I have no way of judging the competence or honesty of these netizens, I prefer to trust my own experience and the fact that Apple support APFS on HDD.

Thnxs again Nick. Good to know that APFS works on hard drives as well. I'll read more about that (disadvantages/advantages and user reports)

I use a spinning hard disk for Time Machine backups with no ill effect. I've also seen reports from netizens suggesting potential problems - here's one from Eclectic Light that addresses APFS. This and the referenced articles provide plenty of information (much goes over my head). Many of the issues relate to fragmentation on spinning disks. I suspect periodic incremental Time Machine backups present a much different read/write load than a primary system/data hard drive.

After updating to a Studio a year or so ago, I made the decision to replace all my spinning hard drives with SSDs. Storage, archive, and my primary backup system (CCC) have been changed over - Time Machine is the last one but I see it as low priority. I have less than 3 TB of image data which makes this more practical and cost effective than someone with multiples of that.

Nick

Thnxs Nick. I might get an external Thunderbolt SSD for files (especially my 2Tb photo files, but also documents), and a new external LaCie d2 hard drive (6 or 8 Tb; also depending on availability). External SSD would have to be 4Tb (more is nice, but (too) expensive).

 

[mujana]

Like I said, I'd have to get hands-on to investigate your problem and might not be able to resolve it even then.

APFS works fine for me on HDDs. It has some advantages, the most obvious being the ability to create separate volumes that dynamically share the spare space on the disk.

Various people around the web report/talk about issues with APFS on an HDD; some may be talking about early versions of APFS, some may be scaremongering, some may have found real drawbacks. Since I have no way of judging the competence or honesty of these netizens, I prefer to trust my own experience and the fact that Apple support APFS on HDD.

Thnxs again Nick. Good to know that APFS works on hard drives as well. I'll read more about that (disadvantages/advantages and user reports)

I use a spinning hard disk for Time Machine backups with no ill effect. I've also seen reports from netizens suggesting potential problems - here's one from Eclectic Light that addresses APFS. This and the referenced articles provide plenty of information (much goes over my head). Many of the issues relate to fragmentation on spinning disks. I suspect periodic incremental Time Machine backups present a much different read/write load than a primary system/data hard drive.

In reading through eclectic light article -recent- the difference way APSC and HFS+ stores the blocks of data and then retrieves that data when using SSD or HDs the problem that arises is in fragmentation over time with the HD. SSDs can retrieve fragmented data with no problem but HDs become more and more fragmented to the point where, over a few years of storage, the HDs no longer function in retrieving data because it has become too fragmented..

After updating to a Studio a year or so ago, I made the decision to replace all my spinning hard drives with SSDs. Storage, archive, and my primary backup system (CCC) have been changed over - Time Machine is the last one but I see it as low priority. I have less than 3 TB of image data which makes this more practical and cost effective than someone with multiples of that.

Nick

Thnxs Philip. Do you suggest 2 external SSD’s; 1 for Time Machine and 1 for files (images to work on, etc.)?

If so, than that would be expensive. And for Time Machine backups a SSD doesn’t seem ideal (?). Longer time storage .

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Like I said, I'd have to get hands-on to investigate your problem and might not be able to resolve it even then.

APFS works fine for me on HDDs. It has some advantages, the most obvious being the ability to create separate volumes that dynamically share the spare space on the disk.

Various people around the web report/talk about issues with APFS on an HDD; some may be talking about early versions of APFS, some may be scaremongering, some may have found real drawbacks. Since I have no way of judging the competence or honesty of these netizens, I prefer to trust my own experience and the fact that Apple support APFS on HDD.

Thnxs again Nick. Good to know that APFS works on hard drives as well. I'll read more about that (disadvantages/advantages and user reports)

I use a spinning hard disk for Time Machine backups with no ill effect. I've also seen reports from netizens suggesting potential problems - here's one from Eclectic Light that addresses APFS. This and the referenced articles provide plenty of information (much goes over my head). Many of the issues relate to fragmentation on spinning disks. I suspect periodic incremental Time Machine backups present a much different read/write load than a primary system/data hard drive.

After updating to a Studio a year or so ago, I made the decision to replace all my spinning hard drives with SSDs. Storage, archive, and my primary backup system (CCC) have been changed over - Time Machine is the last one but I see it as low priority. I have less than 3 TB of image data which makes this more practical and cost effective than someone with multiples of that.

Nick

The article says about APFS HDDs: "in extended use they too eventually become too fragmented to continue". However, it offers no evidence to back this up and the author hasn't tested for this or had any personal experience of such a problem. This looks to me like one of those "truths" that inhabit the web, getting repeated in new articles because an old article said it, even though evidence is never cited.

Now, there may be a potential problem unique to APFS which may surface after long continuous use, but until I see some real evidence (and I have looked, extensively) I'm keeping this one in the urban legend category.

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

I use a spinning hard disk for Time Machine backups with no ill effect. I've also seen reports from netizens suggesting potential problems - here's one from Eclectic Light that addresses APFS. This and the referenced articles provide plenty of information (much goes over my head). Many of the issues relate to fragmentation on spinning disks. I suspect periodic incremental Time Machine backups present a much different read/write load than a primary system/data hard drive.

After updating to a Studio a year or so ago, I made the decision to replace all my spinning hard drives with SSDs. Storage, archive, and my primary backup system (CCC) have been changed over - Time Machine is the last one but I see it as low priority. I have less than 3 TB of image data which makes this more practical and cost effective than someone with multiples of that.

Nick

The article says about APFS HDDs: "in extended use they too eventually become too fragmented to continue". However, it offers no evidence to back this up and the author hasn't tested for this or had any personal experience of such a problem. This looks to me like one of those "truths" that inhabit the web, getting repeated in new articles because an old article said it, even though evidence is never cited.

Now, there may be a potential problem unique to APFS which may surface after long continuous use, but until I see some real evidence (and I have looked, extensively) I'm keeping this one in the urban legend category.

Since this is an important discussion for users possibly resulting in data loss, I would not consider it an urban legend. Here is quoted the main part of article regarding fragmentation over time:

Hard disk fragmentation

APFS was designed for use on SSDs and the Flash drives used in Apple’s devices. It has design features that will never work well on hard disks, as they fragment not only file data, but the file system itself. While it’s possible to boot an Apple silicon Mac from a hard drive, you wouldn’t want to run your Mac from one. With an active file system such as that on your Mac’s Data volume, files and the file system get steadily more fragmented until the drive eventually grinds to a halt.

Hard disks using APFS normally remain usable for a year or more when they store files that don’t get changed very often, like media libraries, and in many cases backups, including Time Machine’s. Experience with the latter suggests that most cope well, but in extended use they too eventually become too fragmented to continue. There currently isn’t any effective solution to that fragmentation, other than wiping the volume and starting from scratch. Because Time Machine’s backups are stored as snapshots, they can’t even be copied to another drive to help.

Reliability and maintenance

APFS has been designed to be far more robust and reliable than HFS+. A longstanding problem with HFS+ before journalling was introduced was its propensity to accumulate minor errors that eventually lead to catastrophic failure. One common reason for this was sudden restarting or other interruptions to file system operations. Journalling was added to reduce the chances of those leading to file system damage or inconsistency, and for that reason, you should never use HFS+ without journalling.

One key feature in APFS that makes errors highly improbable is its use of copy-on-write for all file system metadata. This ensures that changes made to the file system are almost guaranteed to remain consistent, even when suddenly interrupted. Unfortunately, one of the side-effects of copy-on-write is fragmentation of file system metadata, thus its main limitation on hard drives.

Conclusion

If your Mac is running a more recent version of macOS, from Mojave onwards, all its SSDs should by default use APFS. Deciding which to use for hard disks is more difficult, and you need to weigh up their advantages and disadvantages carefully. Unless the volumes on that disk are going to see frequent changes, when fragmentation could result in poor performance, in most cases APFS should now be the default.

Link to full article including his previous articles of related topics:

https://eclecticlight.co/2025/01/09/why-use-apfs/

frankly, his detailed knowledge seems to outweigh a simple description as urban legend.

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

Like I said, I'd have to get hands-on to investigate your problem and might not be able to resolve it even then.

APFS works fine for me on HDDs. It has some advantages, the most obvious being the ability to create separate volumes that dynamically share the spare space on the disk.

Various people around the web report/talk about issues with APFS on an HDD; some may be talking about early versions of APFS, some may be scaremongering, some may have found real drawbacks. Since I have no way of judging the competence or honesty of these netizens, I prefer to trust my own experience and the fact that Apple support APFS on HDD.

Thnxs again Nick. Good to know that APFS works on hard drives as well. I'll read more about that (disadvantages/advantages and user reports)

I use a spinning hard disk for Time Machine backups with no ill effect. I've also seen reports from netizens suggesting potential problems - here's one from Eclectic Light that addresses APFS. This and the referenced articles provide plenty of information (much goes over my head). Many of the issues relate to fragmentation on spinning disks. I suspect periodic incremental Time Machine backups present a much different read/write load than a primary system/data hard drive.

In reading through eclectic light article -recent- the difference way APSC and HFS+ stores the blocks of data and then retrieves that data when using SSD or HDs the problem that arises is in fragmentation over time with the HD. SSDs can retrieve fragmented data with no problem but HDs become more and more fragmented to the point where, over a few years of storage, the HDs no longer function in retrieving data because it has become too fragmented..

After updating to a Studio a year or so ago, I made the decision to replace all my spinning hard drives with SSDs. Storage, archive, and my primary backup system (CCC) have been changed over - Time Machine is the last one but I see it as low priority. I have less than 3 TB of image data which makes this more practical and cost effective than someone with multiples of that.

Nick

Thnxs Philip. Do you suggest 2 external SSD’s; 1 for Time Machine and 1 for files (images to work on, etc.)?

If so, than that would be expensive. And for Time Machine backups a SSD doesn’t seem ideal (?). Longer time storage .

I think for your data, it would be quite expensive to go all SSD because of storage space required . HDs might with care taken over time might be the way to go because of expense. The choice should be APSC on HDs though. I think that is the best choice. But read through the Eclectic Light articles - those as well as the Apple articles are my info sources.

It might be helpful as well to reach out to other forums in Apple community on what would be best.