2 Volumes on RAID 1+0 Enclosure. One backup, one storage. Best format
I have a New MacBook Pro, pretty much maxed out including a 4TB internal SSD. I edit and print photos, as well as conduct business and do general things on the Mac. I want to configure a Thunderbay TB3 enclosure with 4 TB disks. The internal drive is so much faster than any attached HDD arrangement, that I want to use the enclosure for backup and additional storage. Can I create two volumes, (or 3) with one doing Time Machine, one for storage, and perhaps one for CC Cloner?
Not sure I understand when to use APFS and when to do other? Thank you.
First thing to note is Time Machine requires APFS with Monterey. So make that volume APFS.
HFS is "faster" than APFS, but APFS is less likely to get a damaged directory, but there are still no repair tools for damaged APFS volumes.
That is the basics. Standard data is fine with HFS.
So if I understand: I can have 3 volumes across the RAID 1+0, one volume will be SPFS, and the other 2 can be HFS+? I didn't realize that one could have two different types of volumes within the same RAID. So, it's trying to set up more than one container within an APFS volume that is a problem in SoftRAID?
I could then restore (or migrate) from the TimeMachine volume in the event of a critical failure?
Would anyone recommend using Chronosync instead of TM, or CarbonCopy?
As a practical matter, since the internal hard drive of my MacBookPro is very fast, is there any point in worrying about speed on an external HDD enclosure? At least until such time as I go back to video production, when an external SSD RAID would be necessary?
Thanks. I realize that there are a few questions here, and I appreciate your help.
Yes you can create any kinds of volumes with SoftRAID, even RAID 5 and RAID 10 on the same disks.
They are all independent.
We need better documentation in the developers kit before we can support multiple APFS volumes in the same container, however.
Carbon Copy Cloner and SuperDuper have been the leaders, as far as I know. Chronosync moved in a slightly different direction, but it is still a good product for synchronizing data.
You are correct about RAID performance in your scenario, as long as you have the capacity on the internal, it will be much faster, unless you got NVMe blades in an enclosure, or PCI card, depending on your Mac.