The audience that can afford the upgrade.
Also, to correct Mr-Stabby; the 27" defaults with a 7200RPM hard drive. It took about 30 seconds to find that.
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 Fusion Drive: Faster Performance in a Simple Consumer-Focused Package
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The audience that can afford the upgrade.
Also, to correct Mr-Stabby; the 27" defaults with a 7200RPM hard drive. It took about 30 seconds to find that.
Where am I, is this still MacRumors?I don't understand why this is so hard?
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 34 Jul 3 15:44 Pictures -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Pictures/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 31 Jul 3 15:45 Music -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Music/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 35 Jul 3 15:46 Downloads -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Downloads/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 32 Jul 3 15:47 Movies -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Movies/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 33 Jul 3 15:50 Dropbox -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Dropbox/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 35 Jul 30 14:33 Documents -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Documents/
Everything else fits fine on a 128GB SSD. The Mini Volume is a 500GB 7200 rpm drive. Music/Photos, etc don't need SSD speeds.
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 34 Jul 3 15:44 Pictures -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Pictures/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 31 Jul 3 15:45 Music -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Music/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 35 Jul 3 15:46 Downloads -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Downloads/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 32 Jul 3 15:47 Movies -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Movies/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 33 Jul 3 15:50 Dropbox -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Dropbox/
lrwxr-xr-x 1 503 20 35 Jul 30 14:33 Documents -> /Volumes/Mini/Users/m/Documents/
Everything else fits fine on a 128GB SSD. The Mini Volume is a 500GB 7200 rpm drive. Music/Photos, etc don't need SSD speeds.
I am on Snow Leopard here but thanks. I have already tried a disk Repair with no luck. There is plenty of space too.
Just had a thought, but I'd love to see apps become "Fusion aware" in the future. (Just like how now some apps take more advantage of multiple cores than they otherwise might.)
For example, I'd love to hear that something like Aperture could be made to keep this month's imported photos on the SSD no matter what and then move all others to the HD. Whereas the OS might think "oh, he only edited half of these photos, I'll move the rest to the HD" it would be great if an App could override that and say "nope, he told me keep ALL of this month's photos ready on the SSD for when he needs to work!"
For example, I'd love to hear that something like Aperture could be made to keep this month's imported photos on the SSD no matter what and then move all others to the HD. Whereas the OS might think "oh, he only edited half of these photos, I'll move the rest to the HD" it would be great if an App could override that and say "nope, he told me keep ALL of this month's photos ready on the SSD for when he needs to work!"
For a decade now on Mac Rumors (with only occasional banning) I have been saying RAMDISC, RAMDISC, RAMDISC. Fusion drive brings as close of a functionality Apple is likely to mass-produce. A Flash + HDD (both commodities) solution.
Good enough, but it's not a RAMDRIVE!!
Rocketman
Good enough, but it's not a RAMDRIVE!!
Rocketman
For everyone that is complaining about the fusion and 7200rpm HD... I think you guys are missing the point. You won't notice a major difference in this setup. All your writes are going to the ssd buffer first and the files you read regularly like apps, the os and dat files will be on the SSD anyway. Putting a 7200rpm drive would offer little real world performance increase for the average user. If you want faster speeds just buy a bigger SSD and forget about fusion. You can always add a thunderbolt external drive if you need the extra storage anyway.
Not worth it
As usually this option is considerably more expensive then necessary, at nearly 1/2 - 1/3 the cost of a Mac Mini, and given what a Mac Mini is usually intended for, the upgrade cost is ridiculous.
Fusion drives may make more sense in the new iMac's and Mac Pro's, but as an upgrade for Mac Mini's they are just not worth it.
As usually this option is considerably more expensive then necessary, at nearly 1/2 - 1/3 the cost of a Mac Mini, and given what a Mac Mini is usually intended for, the upgrade cost is ridiculous.
Fusion drives may make more sense in the new iMac's and Mac Pro's, but as an upgrade for Mac Mini's they are just not worth it.
Why no bigger SSD or combo SSD + HDD (non-fusion)
It doesn't seem like this would be a difficult task. Simply charge more for a larger SSD and use it in a Fusion configuration. Does this make sense or is a 128GB ssd big enough? I mean it wasn't that long ago that we only had HDs. It's not like they're super slow.
I do love my SSD + HD in my MBP, although I'm one that doesn't mind the manual moving of files and creating symlinks. All good stuff. It's strange that Apple doesn't offer this configuration. Why not offer Fusions AND an option to have both SSD and HD without Fusion. Doesn't that make sense? Maybe it's a SKU issue. Hopefully, there will be a solution.
Rob
It doesn't seem like this would be a difficult task. Simply charge more for a larger SSD and use it in a Fusion configuration. Does this make sense or is a 128GB ssd big enough? I mean it wasn't that long ago that we only had HDs. It's not like they're super slow.
I do love my SSD + HD in my MBP, although I'm one that doesn't mind the manual moving of files and creating symlinks. All good stuff. It's strange that Apple doesn't offer this configuration. Why not offer Fusions AND an option to have both SSD and HD without Fusion. Doesn't that make sense? Maybe it's a SKU issue. Hopefully, there will be a solution.
Rob
and their you have it
.
I think we can now see that the new Fusion Mini is the new Pro machine that Tim was talking about. Well, I mean, it beats the Pro machine they are trying to sell now.
.
I think we can now see that the new Fusion Mini is the new Pro machine that Tim was talking about. Well, I mean, it beats the Pro machine they are trying to sell now.
Exactly. The 750GB WD Black HDD on my mini typically runs at about 450GB if I don't overload it with pictures and Aperture libraries. A 750GB SSD would be just about right for that file size. The 480GB or 512GB are not big enough.
According to Lee over at Ars Fusion is a block based tiering set-up, meaning what you are asking for is likely happening. Remember this isnt a caching scheme, this is two hard drives acting as a single volume. OS X already moves files around on your disk based on how frequently theyre accessed. This takes that concept to the next level.
The cynical side of me would say apple includes godawful 5400rpm drives in its base set of products to drive people up the value chain into higher margin upgrades or products. Like the option for this combo drive in only the core i7 mini.
Yes, SSDs are fast. We've known this for years. You don't need a "Fusion Drive" to have fast boot times and application loading.
It's still pathetic that most Apple computers ship with a spinning HD as standard. SSDs should be standard in everything now.
It's still pathetic that most Apple computers ship with a spinning HD as standard. SSDs should be standard in everything now.
Here's some another perspective. Barefeats did some performance testing with the "Mac Pro" fusion drive method that was reported on by MacRumors a while ago. He found that it matched Apple's factory FusionDrive speeds for reads, and soundly beat it for writes:
![fusion_sr.png]()
![fusion_sw.png]()
http://www.barefeats.com/hard158.html
http://www.barefeats.com/hard158.html