Don't mistake it though. You'll still lose all your data.
But nothing has changed. It's still wise to have a back up HD anyways. Hopefully people don't think this fusion thing is a 'backup' thing.
Don't mistake it though. You'll still lose all your data.
A world of difference even though the goals may overlap.
Fusion Drive's total capacity is 1.128TB. A regular hybrid drive caching system is 1TB with the same disk.
"To be clear, this is not a caching concept, at least not in the current use of the word. Cache would imply that the data on the SSD is duplicated, and it's not. If you have a 1TB mechanical drive paired with the 128GB SSD, you have a 1.12 TB storage platform. This truly is the fusion of all the space on two separate disks."
It is indeed a different solution but the pros and cons are not that clear. The fact that total capacity is combined might sound good but in desktop reality nowadays one would probably need to have at least 2TB HDD and, because of the cost, SSD size in most cases will be limited to 128GB. The difference in capacity between two solutions is about 5%. At the same time, caching system is more reliable because the file system will not be affected in the case of SSD failure (both solutions will fail when HDD fails).
I'm assuming they worked it out so that Time Machine sees it as one drive, but wonder if 3rd party apps like Super Duper will have to be updated for it.
I personally don't like the idea. It would make me nervous to add a level of complexity like that.
This is nice tech, but in my opinion Apple has come too late.
I can get a 512 GB flash drive for under 400$ nowadays, which is more than enough for what I need. No magical drive switching just plain old fast flash storage.
Personally, an SSD boot drive and separate large HD seems more practical. No need to "fuse" them into one volume. Just seems like asking for trouble.
I already have 512Gb SSD and I need more ! ^_^ 3TB sounds good.
They have commoditized tiered storage it seems.
High end SANs and ZFS have been doing this for years.
Don't SSDs have a limited number of read/write cycles? I wonder how long this system will function before it needs to be replaced?
Mac OSX is already moving files around your disk so that frequently used ones are near the outer rim of the disk. Modern OS is already very complex. This should be less complex than RAID stuff.
Did not know that, very interesting. Although, I use Safari every day and it still takes way too many bounces on that first launch (I still have the stock 5400 RPM HDD, though)!
I already have 512Gb SSD and I need more ! ^_^ 3TB sounds good.
Which ZFS feature are you referring to
Splitting your ZIL and L2ARC off onto an SSD.
Edit:
yes its technically caching. More so the apple has been done with bigger SAN devices already with storage tiering.
Don't let you fool yourself.
It's different because Fusion Drive is not a caching system. That's probably why they chose the name "Fused". The data resides on both disks and do not duplicate. It's like the disks are combined together. Your storage size should be 1.128 TB here theoretically.
The OCZ tech is "just" another hybrid drive caching system.
Yeah, with this Fusion thing you're giving up one of the big advantages of SSD; reliability.
Funny usualy its "specs dont matter its the end result for users thats important" unless its something people think apple "invented" "brought first to market" then the smallest details matter.
Again wether the SDD is used solely as cache or as a disk with just frequently used files it was already done before .
Btw, I do hope people relise this might not be the optimum way for an SSD to be used, they still have only (consumer grade ssd's) 5-10 000 write cycles, using it only for heavy used files will speed up the process cell wear out.
But at least it's thin and looks cool.
Huh ? You can get a 3TB Fusion drive if 1TB is too small for you. Did you watch the presentation at all ?
A caching system may not speed up much. My Momentus TX doesn't really improve performance anywhere near what Phil's Fusion Drive chart shows. In fact, I didn't notice much difference. If the entire file I'm working on is in the SSD, then yes, it'd be fast like my MBA.
The entire 128Gb SSD won't fail at the same time. Apple bought Anobit earlier to detect and sidestep isolated SSD failures.
My MBA has 512Gb SSD and it works like a charm. I don't believe in any FUD you guys try to spread here.
Meh....
I personally think it's all marketing hocus pocus to distract people from the sad fact that the Mac lineup is shifting to where one can no longer upgrade memory or anything else, and will be shackled to Apple's extortionist upgrade pricing. Make no mistake: that memory is soldered on the board for profit. Pretty soon the SSD's will be soldered on as well.
If Apple actually does release a new Mac Pro in "late 2013" I would not be surprised at all if they came with the memory soldered on the board.
(But the Mac Pro is about upgrade-ability and expandability which Apple hates, which is why it finds itself on death row).
You are not understanding what he is saying , he has 2 points:
1 : Most people dont need 1 TB of disk space capable of being put on an ssd for fast recovery .
2 : If the DRIVE fails you loose both the SSD and HDD, he isnt talking about a sector or cell he is talking about the drive itself. (of course this goes for any drive, backup is the message)
Well, I can still upgrade my 2012 MBA. MacBook Pro Retina can take memory upgrade too.
.
BS, apple marketing FUD (still amazed how many people fall for that)It is moot to discuss whether "specs matters or not matters". Fusion Drive allows the users to have SSD-like speed with mechanical HDD-like storage size.
So is the gain on an caching with SSD or just an ssd , its nice its integrated into the OS and its good to see apple innovating again in desktop market besides making things thinner .The way it works is different from regular hybrid drives. I have tried those approaches and I know they don't work that well. But if it's integrated into the OS, then I think it will be more effective. As someone mentioned, it's effective when we do it manually. This system does it automatically for us. There will be some overhead, but the gain should be noticeable.
Write cycles SSD is a lot worse then HDD overal reliability is about the same .Mechanical HDD wears out too. For consumer apps, the SSD write cycles should be good enough (as good as, or better than mechanical HDD wears). Unless you're running a commercial database server that writes data continuously (i.e., non-stop), it won't matter. Those servers will run on high speed parallel storage system anyway.
Yes ! And also the reliability point may be misguided. Without Fusion Drive, you're limited to SSD _or_ HDD, and you have to move the files yourself. The reliability for managing both SSD and HDD yourself is the same as Fusion Drive, but in Fusion Drive, Mac OSX automate the process for you.