MacOS Extended filesystem performance dependent on method used to clone HDD??

I am new to Hackintosh. I just Hackintosh'd my first system last week - an HP 6200 with an i5-2400, 4GB RAM, and an old 1.5Gbps SATA 250GB HDD. I am having a lot of fun, and learning tons of new stuff! My wife has become a "Hackintosh widow", every free minute I get, I spend in my "shop" working on my next Hackintosher project.

But I have noticed some behavior that confuses me. I created my Hackintosh, at first, by cloning my Mac Mini disc using an external USB chassis. I had the 250GB SATA drive in a USB chassis and set it as the target. When I cloned in this way, and put the 250GB HDD back into my HP6200 -- disc performance was SLOW, almost to the point of being unusable.

But at some point during the week - I got the idea to take the HDD out of the MacMini itself, and put it into the HP6200 on the same SATA bus as the 250GB HDD. When I cloned my Mac mini drive in THIS way -- wow, the target drive is fast! When I use MacOS Mojave on my HP 6200 now, installed on the old 1.5Gbps 250GB HDD, it is lightning fast -- almost as fast as my Mac mini with a SSD in it!?!!?

I though this was perhaps an anomaly - and did it again.... first I cloned the drive over USB... then again over SATA. I saw the same results. My target drive, when cloned over SATA, is perhaps 10x as fast as when I clone it over USB. same drive, same OS, same filesystem!?!?!

So, I am wondering - it appears that cloning the HDD over USB, versus cloning it over SATA, has some important difference that I don't yet understand. I have a feeling that, when I clone it over SATA, the target drive somehow gets partitioned/formatted differently... even though in both instances the resulting drive says it is Mac OS Extended (Journaled).... the drive cloned over SATA is at least 10 times as fast.

Does anyone understand MacOS Extended enough to help me understand?

thanks.

submitted by /u/ksandbergfl
[link] [comments]