Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

NTurner42

macrumors regular
Dec 25, 2010
109
0
Kentucky
Just curious, anyone know if you can get the Fusion Drive and actually disable them to make two separate drives? And is the Fusion Drive bootcamp capable? I'd much rather just have a 512 gig SSD, but that doesn't seem like it'll be an option.
 

forty2j

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2008
2,585
2
NJ
Just curious, anyone know if you can get the Fusion Drive and actually disable them to make two separate drives? And is the Fusion Drive bootcamp capable? I'd much rather just have a 512 gig SSD, but that doesn't seem like it'll be an option.

Yes, you can use the command line (not Disk Utility) to split up a Fusion Drive into separate SSD and HDD.

Yes, you can bootcamp a Fusion drive, but you only get a partition of the HDD. No SSD will be available to Windows.
 

CoolSpot

macrumors regular
Jan 6, 2004
167
226
Coolspot,

Perhaps. However a 700GB hard drive (or whatever that size is) isn't as bad as a 64GB SSD.

In 3-4 years I may be laughed at for having a hard drive on my system.

I know it's going to be expensive, but I want the fastest means of launching all my programs. I don't think, with 400GB of content, that a Fusion drive is going to be the answer.

Maybe I am completely wrong.

You probably don't have 400gb of programs, you probably have 400gb of data. The entire point of the Fusiondrive is that you get most of the performance (boot speed, launch time, etc) of an SSD while still retaining the large storage capacity of a traditional HDD.

By buying a large SSD now, you're getting hit with huge Apple margins on a very expensive component that will be rendered obsolete much faster than all of the other items in the system. Its just not a good investment, especially in light of the performance of the Fusiondrive solution.
 

iamgalactic

macrumors regular
Apr 21, 2010
180
60
There's a disadvantage when you access lots of small files - but you don't have any small files on the HD portion of a Fusion drive!

As the FD operates at a 'block level', wouldn't that constitute lots of small files being moved around?
 

Razorhog

macrumors 65816
Sep 16, 2006
1,148
116
Arkansas
By buying a large SSD now, you're getting hit with huge Apple margins on a very expensive component that will be rendered obsolete much faster than all of the other items in the system. Its just not a good investment, especially in light of the performance of the Fusiondrive solution.

While I understand your argument, it's hard for me to completely agree. If iMacs were user serviceable, things would be different. I hope the fusion drive is only a temporary product - after a period of time SSD will replace spinners completely. We're in the period of transition right now.

I see your logic, but I want pure SSD so badly!
 

dearlaserworks

macrumors regular
Apr 28, 2012
235
2
Eastern Shore, USA
Time Machine creates what looks like a complete snapshot of your hard drive now. Plus a complete snapshot of your hard drive of an hour ago. One of two hours ago. ... One of 24 hours ago. One of the day before, for several days. Then weekly ones. If you add up all the sizes, it gets enormous.

Just to clarify, Time Machine will only backup changed files after the first backup, keeping all versions until the backup drive is full. Once full, Time Machine will delete the oldest versions from the backup drive to make room for newer.

There's a disadvantage when you access lots of small files - but you don't have any small files on the HD portion of a Fusion drive!.

There is nothing about Fusion that will avoid moving small files to HDD as space is needed on the SSD for more frequently accessed files.
 

hfg

macrumors 68040
Dec 1, 2006
3,621
312
Cedar Rapids, IA. USA
Just to clarify, Time Machine will only backup changed files after the first backup, keeping all versions until the backup drive is full. Once full, Time Machine will delete the oldest versions from the backup drive to make room for newer.

The OP was worried about watching for a disk full condition, and as you said, Time Machine will manage that by removing redundant old versions of files to keep enough working space.

Furthermore, Time Machine will notify you when your backup disk actually becomes full, such that there are no historical-versions of files that can be removed in order to add new backup data. Fortunately, I haven't hit that point yet. :)

I tried to add 1.3 TB to my backup raid system last night which only had 850 GB of space available. Time Machine worked for quite a while "cleaning up" the drive system to make room, then faithfully backed up the 1.3 TB of new files.
 
Last edited:

dearlaserworks

macrumors regular
Apr 28, 2012
235
2
Eastern Shore, USA
The OP was worried about watching for a disk full condition, and as you said, Time Machine will manage that by removing redundant old versions of files to keep enough working space.

Furthermore, Time Machine will notify you when your backup disk actually becomes full, such that there are no duplicate versions of files that can be removed in order to add new backup data. Fortunately, I haven't hit that point yet. :).

Time Machine doesn't keep duplicate versions of files. Once the backup disk is full, TM will purge older unique versions. I've hit that point a number of times and the system clearly stated what it was doing at the time.
 

hfg

macrumors 68040
Dec 1, 2006
3,621
312
Cedar Rapids, IA. USA
Time Machine doesn't keep duplicate versions of files. Once the backup disk is full, TM will purge older unique versions. I've hit that point a number of times and the system clearly stated what it was doing at the time.

It did notify you before removing files which were the last version of that file which would then be lost forever? That is good to know.

I misspoke above with "duplicate versions" as I meant "historical-versions", i.e. where there were newer versions of the same file still in the backup.
 

rainbowsofwhite

macrumors 6502
Jul 21, 2011
277
0
While I understand your argument, it's hard for me to completely agree. If iMacs were user serviceable, things would be different. I hope the fusion drive is only a temporary product - after a period of time SSD will replace spinners completely. We're in the period of transition right now.

I see your logic, but I want pure SSD so badly!


Serviceability, for me is the ultimate deciding factor here.

I don't want to be stuck with a Hard "Disk" Drive Dinosaur in my computer for the next few years.
Purchase the SSD/HDD combo "fusion" now and you're stuck with it.

Putting cost aside and looking at it more from a technological perspective, the HDD combo will be rendered obsolete much faster than a pure Solid State Drive.
 

dearlaserworks

macrumors regular
Apr 28, 2012
235
2
Eastern Shore, USA
It did notify you before removing files which were the last version of that file which would then be lost forever?

Ummm... after, not before, sorry. Click on Options at the bottom of the Time Machine Sys Prefs and you'll see a check box to "Notify after old backups are deleted" (or not notify you, if unchecked).
 
Last edited:

KaraH

macrumors 6502
Nov 12, 2012
452
5
DC
Which is fine for those of you who do not mind opening your computer... and do not worry about the risk of damaging it and voiding a warranty. Many people (myself included)... choose to not take that path.

OWC has had a turnkey program (and still do) for installing their stuff in your machine. Of course it costs a little more but it is worth it and your warranty does not get voided. You can even get your mac delivered to them directly so you do not have to worry about boxing it.

http://blog.macsales.com/11638-owc-turnkey-program-for-2011-imacs-announced
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.