I am running LRC on my Imac using Mojave. I just got a Crucial X6 SSD hd and cloned my pictiures to it from a regular extrnal HD that was formatted MAC Journald. Are there drawbacks to using the ExFAT for my Lightroom Classic origionals instead of the new Apple APSF native format. I spent 2 days cloning the pictures to the drive. Now I realize that it was formated to ExFAT. Will I have drawbacks in the future to this format? n Should I erase everything and spend a nother 2 days waiting for the lone to finish
Thank you GoldingD. The link was extremely helpfull. I have reformated to APFS and in the process of re-cloning 2.17 TB of photographs. The ofigional clone I did last week when my new drie was formatted EXFAT took 27:57:19 to complete 2.17 TB transfer.. I am in the process of doing the same clone again. At 4:51 elapes time in 1.37 TB the transfer and have already coppied 1.37 TB have already been copied. It looks like you hit the nail on the head. This time it shold be over 50% faster.
OOps I mistyped my reply. I did not meeen to repeat my self. who know you could stutter in a text. Thel source drive had 2.17 TB. So far afer almost 5 hours 1.37 TB have been coppied. The previous clone of 2.17 TB took almost 28 hours. Conclusion APFS in this case shold turn out to be twice as fast than the same SSD drive formatted ExFAT. So glad I decided to erase the first transfer and redo the clone..
the APFS file system was specifically developed to be much faster on SSD drives than previous file systems so it makes sense you are seeing an increase in speed. I would definitely stay with native file systems to the operating system for your images so for mac os x always use APFS (or HFS extended for spinning disks). This is just for reliability. The native filesystem support is going to be far better debugged than non-native ones.
6
Replies
AdChoices