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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's New 'Fusion Drive' Not a Typical Hybrid Drive
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
If they'd sell an internal combo drive that had SSD + HDD included in one 3.5" enclosure, I'd buy one right now.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Attachments
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.
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.
What is the procedure when one of the two drives fail? Seems like a Raid0 scenario.
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.).
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.).
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 ?
----------
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.