Fusion Drive Now Available as Option for Low End 21.5" iMac

gnasher729 · Jan 5, 2013

Marx55 said:
Apple should allow Fusion Drive also on third-party external booting Mac drives.

I don't think it's disallowed, but it would be an extreme risky business.

Normally, a drive is either connected and/or turned on, or it's not. In the first case, it works, in the second case, it is safe from any harm. But a Fusion drive is one drive consisting of two drives. If one of them is turned on and the other isn't, the operating system sees half a Fusion drive, and anything could get wrong at that point.

----------

Marcus-k said:
Exactly what of what he said was BS? All his points are true.

His points:
"It's safer, cooler, less noisy, faster/always fast etc."
One SSD only instead of having data over two discs will be safer, not having a harddrive will be cooler and less noisy, and it will of course be faster too since all of your data will be on the SSD, instead of just some.

With the same SSD drive, it won't be faster. If all your data fits on the SSD drive, it will be all on the SSD portion of the Fusion drive and the speed is the same. If it doesn't fit, then the Fusion drive is infinitely faster because it still works and the SSD drive on its own doesn't.

50voltphantom · Jan 5, 2013

It seems to me that the low-end iMac with the Fusion Drive option would be the no-brainer configuration for a lot of people. It reads "desktop Air" with the added benefit of a big honkin' HDD to me. If Fusion Drive was standard, these machines would sell like crazy.

gnasher729 · Jan 5, 2013

azentropy said:
No, I do not know the failure rates. However, SSDs do fail. HDDs do fail. When you rely on both you are going to have a higher failure rate than either separately.

Absolutely not, because the SSD drive contains all the small files that would cause excessive head movement on the hard drive, so the hard drive will last longer than a hard drive on its own. And the hard drive can contain lots and lots of large files which would wear out the SSD drive, so the SSD drive will last longer as well. The wear on each part of the Fusion drive is much less than the wear on each individual drive on its own would be.

cameronjpu · Jan 5, 2013

azentropy said:
No, I do not know the failure rates. However, SSDs do fail. HDDs do fail. When you rely on both you are going to have a higher failure rate than either separately.

While in principle you are correct, you are ignoring (I think) the fact that this HDD should be far more reliable than a typical desktop HDD specifically because it's a low RPM drive. So while yes, the SSD+HDD in the Fusion drive will have a higher failure rate than the drives not lashed together, I think you would acknowledge that it's possible that the Fusion drive have a lower failure rate than a typical 7200 RPM desktop drive. Right?

----------

gnasher729 said:
Absolutely not, because the SSD drive contains all the small files that would cause excessive head movement on the hard drive, so the hard drive will last longer than a hard drive on its own. And the hard drive can contain lots and lots of large files which would wear out the SSD drive, so the SSD drive will last longer as well. The wear on each part of the Fusion drive is much less than the wear on each individual drive on its own would be.

Also good points.

So I think that with my above post and yours here, we should all be able to agree that it is POSSIBLE that the Fusion drive will have better reliability than a standard desktop hard drive. We'll only know in 5-6 years, and really, we'll never know. But I think both sides here are arguing past each other. You should really go enjoy your Saturday morning instead.

gnasher729 · Jan 5, 2013

Marcus-k said:
Less noisy is a fact, a SSD is totally silent, a spinning HDD is as a fact not. You claiming that a harddrive is totally silent is completely wrong and just outright lying.

What about this claim: On an MBP, you can't hear the hard drive unless you put an ear on the case. And on an iMac positioned at a reasonable viewing distance, you can't hear the hard drive.

toke lahti · Jan 5, 2013

SDAVE said:
"Fusion drive" is just a gimmick. Very transparent to the user, but it's pretty much an mSATA SSD and HDD combo. That will go away once SSD's are more affordable.

No it won't. After TB is cheaper in SSD than in HDD (which is estimated to take more than a decade...), there will still be cheap, slow and big SSDs and expensive, fast and small SSDs.
Trend in storage in near future will point towards 2.5" hdd's, so maybe after about 5 years TB will cost less in 2.5" than 3.5" hdd's.

SDAVE said:
Your iMac has a 2.5" HDD slot, so if you just have an SSD in there, you can upgrade it yourself and make it into a "fusion drive". There are plenty of tools out there and people have made it work on systems that didn't come with it by default.

MacDav said:
You can create your own "fusion" setup. The software is included in both Lion and Mountain Lion 10.7, 10.8. It's easier if you have a MacPro because you've got slots for extra hard drives and easy access to them. You can use external drives also. Just install your drives, one SSD and one HD. Open up the terminal app. and type: diskutil cs create bla disk0 disk1

Disk0 being your ssd and disk1 being your regular HD. Depending on your set up it may not be disk0 or disk1. You need to know the disk number that is assigned to each disk and use those accordingly. The system software does the rest for you. The two drives mount as a single drive. I haven't tried this myself, I might at some point. If you screw up your Mac don't blame me. I'm not telling you to do this. I didn't come up with this, it's all over the net, do a search. In fact I recommend you do a search and use those instructions instead of mine. You can let me know how I got it all wrong.

Somebody has really succesfully DIYed Fusion with 10.7?
Any links please? (I'd like to put that to my MP1,1...)

Mr. Retrofire said:
7200 RPM drives are less green, produce a lot of heat & noise, and are NOT much faster. The Fusion drive does not need a 7200 RPM HDD.

How about 21.5"er without Fusion? Could it use faster hdd?

AppleFan360 · Jan 5, 2013

azentropy said:
And again since a Fusion drive contains a HDD with moving parts it is of course going to be louder than a SSD/Flash Drive alone. Even with the HDD Apple is using which IS very quiet, it by itself and in a Fusion drive is louder than a SSD/Flash Drive would be alone.

Duh! I know all that, but the HDD in the iMac cannot be heard outside of the iMac thus, the new iMac with Fusion drive is totally silent. Again, you don't know that because you don't have one.

GoCubsGo · Jan 5, 2013

haruhiko said:
Early adopters are screwed again.

I rarely feel this way but I have to really agree here. This seems to be a trend for Apple nowadays.

bdbolin · Jan 5, 2013

Macdick said:
128Gb HD in any Mac's should be legaly Banned!!! what a joke!!!

wtf are you talking about? It's 1TB drive in total. 128gb SSD within it is generous if the price is fair.

FYI my 3TB Imac actually said around 3.12TB's of free space.

----------

jessica. said:
I rarely feel this way but I have to really agree here. This seems to be a trend for Apple nowadays.

I'd be pissed.

HatterZero · Jan 5, 2013

jessica. said:
I rarely feel this way but I have to really agree here. This seems to be a trend for Apple nowadays.

Next time wait or If you don't want to ever feel like you were "screwed" don't buy anything, because every few months something "better" is coming out.

johnnyrb · Jan 5, 2013

I want a MacPro with a Fusion Drive and Thunderbolt!!!

I will have died of old age before Apple releases new MacPro's.

DYER · Jan 5, 2013

Nice, saved myself a few hundred pounds because they didn't offer Fusion on the iMac. Ended up buying a Mac Mini with Fusion and the top tier processor instead an iMac 21.5. (I don't really work with video so haven't felt any need for a more powerful graphics solution and to be honest haven't even noticed).

I have to say though that Fusion Drive has turned out to be a complete dream. It works perfectly and it seems to be super efficient at moving frequently accessed filed to the SSD - all the way down to my most played songs in iTunes.

I think it was silly of apple not to offer FD on the base spec iMacs and it is nice to see them waking up to the real world.

For anyone considering it I'd say don't knock it till you've tried it. Reason being I know most people can create a dual SSD and HD solution by moving things to separate disks but to be frank I don't want the hassle of not always knowing where certain files are. And a file might be needed on the SSD for a while and then not needed and I don't want to have to think about where it is. FD does it for you and 128 gb seems to be more than enough storage for frequently accessed files!

charlituna · Jan 5, 2013

NutsNGum said:
Why wasn't it an option in the first place?

Because they designed the lowest model for common users that generally don't need that kind of computer magic to read email, surf the web etc.

They are likely just adding it as a custom cause folks were bitching about it not being.

----------

Macdick said:
128Gb HD in any Mac's should be legaly Banned!!! what a joke!!!

Sounds like someone doesn't understand the tech being used here. And why it renders huge SSD less important

azentropy · Jan 5, 2013

gnasher729 said:
Absolutely not, because the SSD drive contains all the small files that would cause excessive head movement on the hard drive, so the hard drive will last longer than a hard drive on its own. And the hard drive can contain lots and lots of large files which would wear out the SSD drive, so the SSD drive will last longer as well. The wear on each part of the Fusion drive is much less than the wear on each individual drive on its own would be.

Possibly, however in most cases a Fusion volume actually causes more reads and writes since it is moving data back and forth between the SSD and HDD. Especially when reach the point where you have more data than can be kept on the SSD alone.

cameronjpu said:
While in principle you are correct, you are ignoring (I think) the fact that this HDD should be far more reliable than a typical desktop HDD specifically because it's a low RPM drive. So while yes, the SSD+HDD in the Fusion drive will have a higher failure rate than the drives not lashed together, I think you would acknowledge that it's possible that the Fusion drive have a lower failure rate than a typical 7200 RPM desktop drive. Right?

Sure it is possible, but not probable. However since the 21.5" iMac only has a 5400rpm drive either by itself and in a Fusion configuration that doesn't matter if a 5400rpm drive may be more reliable than a 7200rpm. A SSD + 5400rpm drive is going to have a higher combined failure rate than a 5400rpm drive alone.

Chris Blount said:
Duh! I know all that, but the HDD in the iMac cannot be heard outside of the iMac thus, the new iMac with Fusion drive is totally silent. Again, you don't know that because you don't have one.

Except that I DO have a 2012 21.5" iMac with a 5400rpm drive. It is very quiet, but it is still louder than a SSD alone would be since a SSD makes ZERO noise. You think that putting the 5400rpm drive in a Fusion configuration magically makes it silent??

NutsNGum · Jan 5, 2013

SeniorGato1 said:
Because Apple wants more of your money for an outdated SSD.

An outdated SSD with 400+ MB Read/write speeds? There's a point where you'll no longer notice a difference sufficient enough to warrant the added cost. And you know that with Apple, there will be.

jnc · Jan 5, 2013

iGrip said:
Back when Apple was going bankrupt, they had huge numbers of options.

Now, they make more profits than anybody else. Legendary profits. Profits that put them front and center in Business School textbooks.

Somehow, I think that Apple can make Wall Street happy without your advice.

Wow... I'd heard people like you exist, but I'd never actually come across one until now. I'll remind myself to be nothing but satisfied by Apple in the future. Thankyou.

PS AAPL has taken a steady dive recently to $527; it was $606 6 months ago, a time prior to the new iMac, iPhone, iPod, iPad, Retina Mac era, so your Wall Street point doesn't even make sense

charlituna · Jan 5, 2013

gnasher729 said:
"Early adopters" got exactly what they paid for. Now Apple offers you to buy something that is better than the lowest end iMac for more money, or less good than the better iMac for less money. So please explain how these "early adopters" getting screwed?

Easy,they got screwed cause they couldn't keep it in their pants a bit longer to see if the bugs were worked out, if new options were brought in etc as often happens with Apple's computers.

Most of them whine like the teenager that got poison ivy on her butt doing it in the bushes at some back to school party cause she didn't want to be the only Senior (other than the nerds and dweebs if course) that was still a virgin. She could have said no. Especially since she got dumped for the head cheerleader two weeks later

The Bulge · Jan 5, 2013

gnasher729 said:
What about this claim: On an MBP, you can't hear the hard drive unless you put an ear on the case. And on an iMac positioned at a reasonable viewing distance, you can't hear the hard drive.

I can't hear my iMac even at night in dead silence. My bed is around 4 meters away from the desk it's on.

DYER · Jan 5, 2013

azentropy said:
Except that I DO have a 2012 21.5" iMac with a 5400rpm drive. It is very quiet, but it is still louder than a SSD alone would be since a SSD makes ZERO noise. You think that putting the 5400rpm drive in a Fusion configuration magically makes it silent??

Actually for record they are pretty much silent. My Hard drive barely ever spins up unless I am adding new files which really isn't that frequent. The FD system is usually pretty quick to move things to the SSD.
And anyway the HD is the lesser issue when it comes to noise. I usually notice the fans far more than I ever have a hard drive and considering the temp of the HD is around 38c it is hardly the biggest issue... I don't think the SSD makes even the slightest bit of difference to that.

nexusrule · Jan 5, 2013

Icaras said:
http://9to5mac.com/2012/08/01/more-build-to-order-options-arrive-for-retina-macbook-pros/

Early adopters getting a low end rMBP were essentially locked with only a 256GB SSD and the only way to get a higher capacity was to purchase the high end rMBP, which was $600 more.

I don't see a big difference, given that of this $600 500 are for the ssd itself, if you are spending 2.699 you can spend 2.799 and get a better cpu too. It's not like now you can save 3-400$ going with the base model.

jnc · Jan 5, 2013

Mr. Retrofire said:
7200 RPM drives are “less green”, produce a lot of heat & noise, and are NOT much faster. The Fusion drive does not need a 7200 RPM HDD.

I'm not even talking about the Fusion Drive here, when did I mention it, or what it "needs"? Why are you defending something that hasn't been argued??

I'm talking about the iMac I OWN and USE, with 5400rpm only. I find the speed unsatisfactory and I had no other option at time of purchase, short of springing for a 27" which I simply don't need. Luckily I can still return it, which I'll be doing.

carlgo · Jan 5, 2013

Apple seems to be basing its future on thin, expensive and sealed devices, all dependent on a very, very imperfect data transmission infrastructure that may not get a lot better very soon.

Seems a bit like one man's dream. We will see how it plays out.

shurcooL · Jan 5, 2013

What about making it an option for classic MacBook Pro? My dad would really like that.

gnasher729 · Jan 5, 2013

toke lahti said:
Somebody has really succesfully DIYed Fusion with 10.7?
Any links please? (I'd like to put that to my MP1,1...)

As far as I know, 10.8.2 is required. And I have never heard a claim otherwise. For example, to access the Fusion drive inside another Mac in "Target Disk Mode" your Mac needs 10.8.2.

shurcooL said:
What about making it an option for classic MacBook Pro? My dad would really like that.

If you read through various threads here, you can do that yourself, and quite cheaply. It's a bit complicated, but quite doable. You need MacOS X 10.8.2, replace the optical drive with something like Optibay and a 128 GB SSD drive (I can buy both for £80 total), Time Machine backup because you can't create a Fusion Drive without destroying all existing data, and then follow instructions from the internet. (Apparently this fails with one particular 15" MBP model but works with everything else).

nematoda2 · Jan 5, 2013

azentropy said:
Great news, but yeah kinda ticked now. Would have changed how I ordered.

Still wish there was just a SSD or Flash Drive option. Some people don't require 1TB and don't want ANY mechanical HDD and the noise, heat and higher failure time that come along with them.

----------

I've had my 27" with a fusion drive for 3 weeks. There's no noise at all.

Fusion Drive Now Available as Option for Low End 21.5" iMac

Suspended

macrumors regular

Suspended

macrumors 65816

Suspended

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68020

macrumors Nehalem

macrumors member

macrumors member

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors G3

macrumors 601

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68020

macrumors G3

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68020

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

Suspended

macrumors newbie

Our Staff