Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:56 PM   #51
codefuns
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
so is that means, if I save a file one time, actually, it was saved 2 times, one to ssd, and one to hard disk? I don't know how it transfer data from ssd to hard disk. is it transfer data directly between ssd and hard disk (something like DMA in cpu's world) or it transfer data via cpu and still need consume main bus band width? if it is second case, it can not be called an innovation.
codefuns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:59 PM   #52
ipmasta
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneakz View Post
Don't mistake it though. You'll still lose all your data.
Im glad that I have an Apple Time Capsule router so I wont ever have to worry about losing my data in the event of a hard drive failure. :-)
ipmasta is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:59 PM   #53
petsounds
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Fusion Drive is the first "wow" moment I've had during an Apple PR event in a long time, probably not since the original iPhone launch (when it was more like one hour-long wow). It shows they are still doing some innovation beyond "making it lighter and thinner".

If they'd sell an internal combo drive that had SSD + HDD included in one 3.5" enclosure, I'd buy one right now.
petsounds is offline   12 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:04 PM   #54
babyj
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by iphoneclassic View Post
EMC Storage frames have this built in feature for years. This is nothing new but a cheaper way to do it. It is probably two drives one SSD and HDD in one box and OS X can do the swap.
A cheaper way of doing it is nothing new - IBM mainframes had the same functionality implemented within software a long time ago (most likely pre-dating EMCs implementation). Though Apple appear to have implemented it differently.

On mainframes the file locations were stored in catalogs. So when a file was moved between different storage tiers the catalog would be updated with the new location. Whenever you opened a file the system would check the catalog for it's location.

Not sure why anyone is using the word innovation. This is another case of Apple taking someone else's ideas and putting their own spin on them. Nice feature though.
babyj is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:06 PM   #55
ctyrider
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Is there a way to enable this feature on an older machine with SSD+HD disks? I assume the new iMacs with "fusion" with ship with an updated 10.8 version supporting it? Or is there something hardware-specific in the new machines, that makes "fusion" possible?
ctyrider is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:06 PM   #56
Stetrain
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by petsounds View Post
If they'd sell an internal combo drive that had SSD + HDD included in one 3.5" enclosure, I'd buy one right now.
That's not what 'Fusion drive' is. The new iMacs and Mac Minis have a place for both a 'blade' style SSD (like the Air and RMBP) as well as a standard hard drive. The 'Fusion' is just hardware that manages those two drives to work together seamlessly.
Stetrain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:06 PM   #57
Cougarcat
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by codefuns View Post
so is that means, if I save a file one time, actually, it was saved 2 times, one to ssd, and one to hard disk?
It saves it once, based on where the OS thinks it should go. Probably most if not all documents will be saved on the hard drive as they don't really benefit from SSD speeds.

The really cool thing is that it'll move apps from one to another intelligently based on your usage, done invisibly in the background.
Cougarcat is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:07 PM   #58
trip1ex
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Yeah this was pretty clear.

IT is the same thing people do now in pcs. PUt a SSD in as your boot drive. And then add a large hard drive for your data. OR what they do in their MBPs.

Except in this case OSX will automatically move your most frequently accessed files to the SSD occasionally and keep it filled with as many as possible.
trip1ex is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:08 PM   #59
monaarts
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post
This is actually not needed if apple went with 256GB as standard
Uhhh... no. In my 27" iMac I currently have:
  • 1 TB HDD for personal files (documents, downloaded documents, etc)
  • 120 GB SSD for MacOS and Apps
  • 1.25 TB HDD (partition) for iTunes
  • 750 GB HDD (partition) for back up of the first 2 drives listed here

I am currently using about 60% of my storage available. This is a DESKTOP, usability is much more important that "being thinner". If Apple were to remove the HDD as standard to install a small SSD for "speed and size" they would lose at least me as a customer - and I spend a lot of money with the company.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2012-10-23 at 11.01.44 PM.png
Views:	230
Size:	113.3 KB
ID:	371754  
__________________
27" 2011 iMac | iPhone 5S | iPad mini LTE | 2 x TV 3
monaarts is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:08 PM   #60
TallManNY
macrumors 68020
 
TallManNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Ha, so this is different than current hybrid drives. It wasn't clear in the presentation that it was, but this is an improvement.

For folks that want to have two different drives, I don't know why you don't think the software can automate something as simple as comparing what you access and how long it takes. The software is going to get it right is my guess.

For the guy accessing 150 GB of raw photos, I don't think SSD actually accesses that stuff all that much faster than a spinning HD. The big file you are accessing is all right in the same place, so it will be read quickly. It is the jumping back and forth from the file to your system files that might be slowing you down right now. But your system will be on the SSD portion. So yes, I suspect you will see large performance increases with a fusion drive even if you can't get all your pictures on it at once.
__________________
Mid-2011 3.1GHz i5 iMac (6970m); HP Spectre (Win 8.1)
BBRY Q10; iPhone 6; iPad Mini-R
Apple Stockholder (a nice dividend, stock buybacks and cutting edge innovation? yes please!)
TallManNY is online now   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:08 PM   #61
JesterJJZ
macrumors 68000
 
JesterJJZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan5806 View Post
How is that asking for trouble?
What is the procedure when one of the two drives fail? Seems like a Raid0 scenario.
__________________
jesterpictures.com theoryiseverything.com jarek.com
Shoot for the Impossible...Then do it
MacPro 12core, 64GB, GTX680, 30" ACD, 23" ACD -- 15" MBP 2.6 i7, Anti-Glare, 16GB, 240GB SSD + 1TB
JesterJJZ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:08 PM   #62
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1ex View Post
Yeah this was pretty clear.

IT is the same thing people do now in pcs. PUt a SSD in as your boot drive. And then add a large hard drive for your data. OR what they do in their MBPs.

Except in this case OSX will automatically move your most frequently accessed files to the SSD occasionally and keep it filled with as many as possible.
Then it's different from what people are doing now in PCs.
viacavour is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:09 PM   #63
ericinboston
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Seems Apple is just too cheap...you can get a fantastic SATA3 128GB SSD for under $100 anywhere...Kingston brand as well as other name brands like Intel or Crucial. A 256GB SSD is about $170. A 512GB is, unfortunately, about $500 but that price will come down very fast.

THOSE ARE RETAIL PRICES. Apple would be paying about 50% (or less!) of those prices with the hundreds of thousands of units they would purchase.

Apple should just skip all the time and effort of "fusion" and plop in SSDs. Use Apple/Intel's "wonderful" Thunderbolt (lots of laughs by me) for external stuff...or a 2TB USB3.0 drive for $100 for all your "storage".

Apple is so worried about having more than 1 logical and physical drive in all the Macs...as if humans can't remember that drive1 is for the apps/OS while drive2 is for all the data (music, vids, documents, movies, etc.).
__________________
1st computer: Apple //e 1983-1992
Now: Lenovo E430 i7, 4GB; Thinkpad W500 8gig, 128DG SSD and 500GB SATA drive; Thinkpad W520 24GB, 2 128GB SSDs, Mac Mini Core 2 3gig, 500gig
ericinboston is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:13 PM   #64
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by babyj View Post
A cheaper way of doing it is nothing new - IBM mainframes had the same functionality implemented within software a long time ago (most likely pre-dating EMCs implementation). Though Apple appear to have implemented it differently.

On mainframes the file locations were stored in catalogs. So when a file was moved between different storage tiers the catalog would be updated with the new location. Whenever you opened a file the system would check the catalog for it's location.

Not sure why anyone is using the word innovation. This is another case of Apple taking someone else's ideas and putting their own spin on them. Nice feature though.
Ha ha, if you put it so broadly, then I'm afraid the entire computer industry is not innovating at all after Apple I and the early personal computers. It's just CPU checking and doing stuff. What's new ?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericinboston View Post
Seems Apple is just too cheap...you can get a fantastic SATA3 128GB SSD for under $100 anywhere...Kingston brand as well as other name brands like Intel or Crucial. A 256GB SSD is about $170. A 512GB is, unfortunately, about $500 but that price will come down very fast.

THOSE ARE RETAIL PRICES. Apple would be paying about 50% (or less!) of those prices with the hundreds of thousands of units they would purchase.

Apple should just skip all the time and effort of "fusion" and plop in SSDs. Use Apple/Intel's "wonderful" Thunderbolt (lots of laughs by me) for external stuff...or a 2TB USB3.0 drive for $100 for all your "storage".

Apple is so worried about having more than 1 logical and physical drive in all the Macs...as if humans can't remember that drive1 is for the apps/OS while drive2 is for all the data (music, vids, documents, movies, etc.).
Well, someone above said Mac OSX already knows how to do this on HDD regions. Adding the SSD allows it to have much better performance.

Plopping in full SSDs has been done for MacBook Airs and Pros anyway. The iMac and Mac minis are low end models, which is why Fusion drive works with a better performance/price ratio. In fact, they should enable Fusion drive for the MacBooks too ! My MacBook Air has 512Gb SSD but I have far more data.
viacavour is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:13 PM   #65
Cougarcat
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stetrain View Post
That's not what 'Fusion drive' is. The new iMacs and Mac Minis have a place for both a 'blade' style SSD (like the Air and RMBP) as well as a standard hard drive. The 'Fusion' is just hardware that manages those two drives to work together seamlessly.
I think what he was saying is that he'd buy an external drive w/ SSD, HD, and hardware (if there is any) that provides the seamlessness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctyrider View Post
Is there a way to enable this feature on an older machine with SSD+HD disks? I assume the new iMacs with "fusion" with ship with an updated 10.8 version supporting it? Or is there something hardware-specific in the new machines, that makes "fusion" possible?
I don't think anyone knows yet. Wait for the iFixit teardown.

If it's just in software, hopefully someone will find a way to enable it as I don't think Apple will provide a way themselves.
Cougarcat is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:14 PM   #66
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesterJJZ View Post
What is the procedure when one of the two drives fail? Seems like a Raid0 scenario.
Probably not far off. Its certainly increasing the probability of data loss since now you have 2 drives involved instead of 1 (although 1 is an SSD so "perhaps" its more reliable).
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:15 PM   #67
arkmannj
macrumors 65816
 
arkmannj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UT
Send a message via AIM to arkmannj
Quote:
Originally Posted by btbeme View Post
Way cool technology aside, is anyone else curious how VMWare feels about the name?
Run fusion on Fusion (F^2) for better best performance.

I'm curious how the Fusion drive handles bootcamp (or should I say how bootcamp handles the Fusion drive)
arkmannj is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:16 PM   #68
Beezzy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
I want the 27" Mac with a 2TB fusion drive! RIGHT MEOW! lol
__________________
Late 2011 15" MacBook Pro, 2.4GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750GB HD, AMD HD6770 w/1GB VRAM
VZW iPhone 5 64GB Black/Slate
iPad 4 32GB Black Apple TV3
Beezzy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:16 PM   #69
jclardy
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
I was thinking that this was how it worked. When Schiller posted the performance in importing photos it seemed odd that the fusion drive was just as fast.

Most hybrid systems would copy the data immediately to the permanent storage (HDD) rather than copying to SSD then transferring in the background over time, later on.

Hybrid drives do concern me a little because of the issues people have had with the Seagate Momentous XT. Given Apple's typically buggy first release of software I am not sure I really trust an Apple built drive to be moving data around all the time like that...
__________________
Swift Fox Software | Amounts - Expense Tracker | Rocket Chimp | TargetTap Lite | TargetTap
jclardy is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:17 PM   #70
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
Probably not far off. Its certainly increasing the probability of data loss since now you have 2 drives involved instead of 1 (although 1 is an SSD so "perhaps" its more reliable).
The file system is journaled anyway. Always backup. Fusion drive increases performance. It's not meant to be a backup or archive solution like Time Capsule.
viacavour is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:20 PM   #71
unobtainium
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post
most of us do not need that bigger size as main drive, you always need to backup the data into some external drive.
Are you sure it's really "most of us"?

A lot of people have huge iTunes libraries these days, or huge iPhoto and Aperture libraries. Storing either of those on an external is a PITA.
__________________
13" Retina MacBook Pro (early 2013); Airport Extreme (802.11ac); iPhone 6 (32GB); Apple TV (3rd gen)
unobtainium is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:21 PM   #72
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclardy View Post
I was thinking that this was how it worked. When Schiller posted the performance in importing photos it seemed odd that the fusion drive was just as fast.

Most hybrid systems would copy the data immediately to the permanent storage (HDD) rather than copying to SSD then transferring in the background over time, later on.

Hybrid drives do concern me a little because of the issues people have had with the Seagate Momentous XT. Given Apple's typically buggy first release of software I am not sure I really trust an Apple built drive to be moving data around all the time like that...
I have a Momentus XT for my Playstation 3. Haven't encountered any issue.

It's a different solution anyway. That's a regular hybrid drive. Fusion drive should be managed by the OS with a filesystem level tracking system. At the OS level, it will be well tested, or they would have lost massive data by now.
viacavour is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:24 PM   #73
lilo777
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by arn View Post
read the article again. seems different

arn

On second thought, it still looks similar to SRT but most likely is not based on one. SRT is a software solution (for a moment I thought it was implemented in a chipset) and it's unlikely that Apple would be even able to use it. Apparently Apple developed similar (software based) solution.
lilo777 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:25 PM   #74
Stetrain
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesterJJZ View Post
What is the procedure when one of the two drives fail? Seems like a Raid0 scenario.
As it was explained in the keynote, this puts whole files on one drive or the other, never across both. Raid0 stripes files across both drives at the bit level, so you could end up with half of each of your files in a drive failure.

In a drive failure with fusion it seems like you would be left with a functioning drive containing the files that were on it at the time of failure.
Stetrain is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:26 PM   #75
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
The file system is journaled anyway. Always backup. Fusion drive increases performance. It's not meant to be a backup or archive solution like Time Capsule.
I don't think you understand what the issue is. You have 2 drives now per filesystem rather than 1 so have theoretically doubled the failure rate. This is why Raid 0 drives are considered a more dangerous set up. If the SSD or HDD fails, the data could all be lost depending on how Apple set up the filesystem. It has nothing to do with journaling or backups.
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   3 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hybrid drive or fusion? Jacksonc MacBook 4 Feb 4, 2014 05:51 AM
Haswell iMac - Fusion drive or No Fusion drive? NbinHD iMac 14 Sep 24, 2013 03:00 PM
Fusion Drive VS Seagate Hybrid Freakstyles MacBook Pro 2 Jun 13, 2013 06:21 AM
Going from a rig with 7200 drive, will the 5400 side of a Fusion drive annoy me? Whackintosh iMac 9 Feb 25, 2013 05:46 PM
27in 2011 iMac Fusion Drive & removing optical drive ZMacintosh iMac 1 Jan 22, 2013 12:24 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC