The 768GB Flash Storage $1300 club

[vannibombonato]

Originally Posted by smr

But (as I asked earlier ) does the fact the LaCie 1TB drive has two 512GB SSDs in RAID0 double the chance of it failing compared with the Apple internal 768GB SSD?

Oh certainly yes, but if that is what's worrying you it also zeroes the chances that you stop working if the drive fails, as you'd still would have your iMac and could work with your backup, while if something internal fails, goodbye iMac.
But wait, if you are worried about reliability and can't risk your work to stop, i suggest you buy TWO identical iMacs in case one of them fails...just as smart.

Not sure it's the right angle you want to pursue in justifying yourself buying it is something rational...

----------

Originally Posted by smr

Thanks for that - that largely confirms what I thought. I was hoping vannibombonato would give us his thoughts on this as he is so keen we use the LaCie external SSD rather than get the Apple internal solution

Just saw it...really, if you think it's smart to buy the Apple thing because of reliability, you're just fooling yourself.

[pyzon]

Originally Posted by hfg

So what do you propose for users requiring 750GB or more of pure SSD storage totally inside the new 27" iMac using parts available today? Keep in mind your budget is $532 - $614 if possible ... links please!

2 x http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-pla-_-NA-_-NA

not quite half the price but close...1st link I found...perhaps another brand?

[hfg]

Originally Posted by pyzon

2 x http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-pla-_-NA-_-NA

not quite half the price but close...1st link I found...perhaps another brand?

... and how are we going to put them 2 of them inside the new iMac? Plus, buying 2 we will be at $800 ... $200 over budget. Even if we spring for the cheapest Fusion option and replace the hard drive with one of these 512GB units, we still only have 640GB ... short of the 768GB or more goal.


I'm not really trying to rag on you ... but you indicated you had a cheaper/better solution and implied that those who purchased the overpriced 768GB SSD option had some mental issues. I was hoping perhaps you really were aware of a solution which we were not.

I know of no other way to get that much internal SSD storage in the new iMac today other than ordering the $1300 upgrade. I have found no other drives larger than 512GB which can be attached to either of the internal interfaces, and the non-fitting choices, like the Apple option, seem to have a exponentially rising cost vs. capacity.

Thus, since that is the only game in town, the cost itself becomes somewhat irrelevant ... it is what it is. The focus becomes one of benefit to meeting the requirements and justification of the cost in doing so vs. changing the requirements.

[pyzon]

Originally Posted by hfg

... and how are we going to put them 2 of them inside the new iMac? Plus, buying 2 we will be at $800 ... $200 over budget. Even if we spring for the cheapest Fusion option and replace the hard drive with one of these 512GB units, we still only have 640GB ... short of the 768GB or more goal.

since there is no teardown of the 27" model, the question of 'will they fit' cannot be answered yet.

$500 cheaper than the Apple offering plus 256GB overhead since it's recommended to never use the entirety of the SSD's volume this will allow you 756GB plus 256GB overhead.

you can always go external, http://www.technocrates.org/buffalo-...3-0-interface/

Internal 256 and get 2 more external Raid0, prices will come down, still cheaper than apple..if you're worried about space use the change to stick them to the back of the iMac, if you worried about esthetics you are not serious about 'having' to have 756GB of SSD storage in the new iMac 27".

Options are out there, there is never a utopia solution but there is always an economically sensible one.

[torana355]

Originally Posted by hfg

So what do you propose for users requiring 750GB or more of pure SSD storage totally inside the new 27" iMac using parts available today? Keep in mind your budget is $532 - $614 if possible ... links please! [COLOR="#808080"]

----------

I would get the standard 1TB HDD (no need to get the fusion model at all, or you could get the fusion and have the 512GB plus the 128GB!) and replace it with a 512GB Samsung or Crucial SSD. Don't tell me you need exactly 768GB of ssd storage, 512 is more then enough and you can always expand externally via thunderbolt.

Edit: Another option is to get a 480GB blade style SSD from OWC and a 512GB 2.5" SSD to replace the regular HDD. You will have just under 1TB of SSD for 600 bucks. Then spend the 700 bucks you saved on another 512GB SSD and a Thunderbolt enclosure.

[vannibombonato]

Originally Posted by hfg

Thus, since that is the only game in town, the cost itself becomes somewhat irrelevant ... it is what it is. The focus becomes one of benefit to meeting the requirements and justification of the cost in doing so vs. changing the requirements.

You're very right on it being the only game in town, what people here are discussing is that, from a "numeric" point of view, it just does not make sense.

The only rational reason i've heard so far in this thread is not to have to worry about risking ever hearing the internal drive spinning, even if you leave it completely empty (it will very likely never spin in this case...but no one can say for sure). Another reason could be "i don't want anything sitting on my desk for aesthetic reasons".
To the personal judgment of nearly everyone the price you pay to achieve these type of "benefit" is a bit excessive, but last time i checked we're all free to do whatever we want with our money.

Net, you're certainly welcome and free to buy it, but don't expect to go out there and pretend to convince people that it's a wise thing to do.

[hfg]

Originally Posted by vannibombonato

You're very right on it being the only game in town, what people here are discussing is that, from a "numeric" point of view, it just does not make sense.

The only rational reason i've heard so far in this thread is not to have to worry about risking ever hearing the internal drive spinning, even if you leave it completely empty (it will very likely never spin in this case...but no one can say for sure). Another reason could be "i don't want anything sitting on my desk for aesthetic reasons".
To the personal judgment of nearly everyone the price you pay to achieve these type of "benefit" is a bit excessive, but last time i checked we're all free to do whatever we want with our money.

Net, you're certainly welcome and free to buy it, but don't expect to go out there and pretend to convince people that it's a wise thing to do.

I am not trying to convince anyone but myself.
I'm just responding to those who are calling anyone who would consider it to be mentally challenged in some way.

I may even wait to see the new Mac Pro ... I currently use a 30" ACD and a 2008 Mac Pro with 6 internal SSD and a 3TB hard disk (plus 2 external/remote backup disk systems). It is getting old, and I am looking at the iMac to fulfill my needs in a much smaller, cooler running, and better looking system without giving up much of anything.

There are several others here who also have large photo libraries and are reluctantly getting the large SSD, and we are not idiots nor have rocks in our heads. We have a need, and there is a solution (1) available, albeit expensive. We are gathered here (sparsely) to discuss alternatives, if any. None of the solutions are going to be cheap, nor do we expect them to be.

I can barely fit what I need on the 768GB (even without a Windows boot) and I do not want a spinning drive in the iMac. For now, I will probably get the 768GB and put a 512GB in a TB enclosure on the back of the iMac stand where it is out of the way. At some point, I will probably open up the iMac and move that drive (or a larger one if available then) inside to the hard disk location (if it is really there ... awaiting the teardown of a 27" to see what's included).

[vannibombonato]

Originally Posted by hfg

It is getting old, and I am looking at the iMac to fulfill my needs in a much smaller, cooler running, and better looking system without giving up much of anything.

There are several others here who also have large photo libraries and are reluctantly getting the large SSD, and we are not idiots nor have rocks in our heads. We have a need, and there is a solution (1) available, albeit expensive. We are gathered here (sparsely) to discuss alternatives, if any. None of the solutions is going to be cheap, nor do we expect it to be.

I can barely fit what I need on the 768GB (even without a Windows boot) and I do not want a spinning drive in the iMac. For now, I will probably get the 768GB and put a 512GB in a TB enclosure on the back of the iMac stand where it is out of the way. At some point, I will probably open up the iMac and move that drive (or a larger one if available then) inside to the hard disk location (if it is really there ... awaiting the teardown of a 27" to see what's included).

No one says you or the other guys in the club are mentally ill, it's just that the idea of spending that kind of money in order not to have the risk of having an empty drive spinning is, i think you can concede this, a bit eccentric, as with less of the money you could have a faster and bigger drive.

Again, as most of you guys agree that you'll need something on the desk besides the imac, the only reasons so far standing seems to get the internal SSD so that you don't risk the empty HDD inside the iMac spinning.

Which is fair, simply eccentric :-)

[smr]

Originally Posted by vannibombonato

No one says you or the other guys in the club are mentally ill, it's just that the idea of spending that kind of money in order not to have the risk of having an empty drive spinning is, i think you can concede this, a bit eccentric, as with less of the money you could have a faster and bigger drive.

Again, as most of you guys agree that you'll need something on the desk besides the imac, the only reasons so far standing seems to get the internal SSD so that you don't risk the empty HDD inside the iMac spinning.

Which is fair, simply eccentric :-)

Some quotes: "not wise", "stupid", "spinning brains", "fooling ourselves", "not making sense"...

[Richard Peters]

Originally Posted by vannibombonato

the only reasons so far standing seems to get the internal SSD so that you don't risk the empty HDD inside the iMac spinning

Just to clarify... I don't want the HDD spinning if in doing so, it's going to make my system hang whist it spins up to speed. If I'm working on a file on my Airs internal drive now in Photoshop and I go to save it, or go to look at another file on the internal drive from a sub archive of photos stored on it (using my photo browser of choice), there is a several second hang and spinning wheel whilst the external spins up to speed, even though the file I'm working on or looking for isn't on it.

I don't want this type of thing happening in future because quite frankly, whilst a few seconds here and there might not seem like much, over the course of the several years I'll own this machine, it'll drive me crazy as it does now on my current setup, not to mention slowing my workflow down.

So before I go Fusion, I need to know for certain how it will work on a sub 128gb data loaded system.

So, it's not just some eccentric desire to not have an empty HDD spinning, there is an actual performance and workflow related issue to why I am trying to avoid it

[Greg Schroeder]

I wonder if a 768gb ssd is at least half the size of the fusion drive components? If it was then those which would like more ssd space internally could put in another, right?

[hfg]

Originally Posted by Greg Schroeder

I wonder if a 768gb ssd is at least half the size of the fusion drive components? If it was then those which would like more ssd space internally could put in another, right?

I think all of us are basing our assumptions on the "cutaway" view of the 27" shown at the announcement, no one has received a 27" 2012 iMac at this time.

From that photo, it appears that the iMac has a single SATA "blade" type SSD mount and a single SATA 3.5" disk drive mount. No mention has been made of any additional SATA ports available on the motherboard, so 2 drive locations are available (1 blade, 1 standard disk).

The Fusion option will have both locations occupied, with a 128GB blade SSD and a 1TB or 3TB hard disk. Either potentially can be upgraded or modified for users willing to risk disassembly.

It is further assumed that the 768GB SSD will be on a single blade type device in the aforementioned location. The disk drive location may or may-not have connectors which would permit adding a hard disk or a standard 2.5" form factor SSD in that location. Once they are shipping, that will be revealed.

One can predict that larger SSD devices will be available in the near future for both formats, but devices available today limit choices, and the Apple 768GB blade would be close to "state of the art" for single devices available today, and it is certainly priced accordingly.

-howard

[hfg]

Originally Posted by vannibombonato

No one says you or the other guys in the club are mentally ill, it's just that the idea of spending that kind of money in order not to have the risk of having an empty drive spinning is, i think you can concede this, a bit eccentric, as with less of the money you could have a faster and bigger drive.

Again, as most of you guys agree that you'll need something on the desk besides the imac, the only reasons so far standing seems to get the internal SSD so that you don't risk the empty HDD inside the iMac spinning.

Which is fair, simply eccentric :-)

I guess we can add "eccentric" to the list mentioned above ...

It isn't the empty spinning disk I don't desire ... it is the slow access speed when moving and working through my photo library full of 25MB+ per photo files. I have already switched over to 100% SSD on my current Mac Pro because of this, and I don't intend to go back to hard disk based libraries.

It's really not the expense either, I'm not a Pro, but many of my mid-range individual lenses in my camera bag exceed the cost of a fully loaded iMac, so spending money on a computer that I use every single day isn't that big a deal, as long as I maintain an upgrade path I can live with.

I am just looking for ideas from others here with similar requirements, on maximizing the flexibility of existing choices for now, and the near future.

[vannibombonato]

Originally Posted by Richard Peters

I don't want this type of thing happening in future because quite frankly, whilst a few seconds here and there might not seem like much, over the course of the several years I'll own this machine, it'll drive me crazy as it does now on my current setup, not to mention slowing my workflow down.

So before I go Fusion, I need to know for certain how it will work on a sub 128gb data loaded system.

So, it's not just some eccentric desire to not have an empty HDD spinning, there is an actual performance and workflow related issue to why I am trying to avoid it

Richard, your need is clear, and i know first-hand what you're talking about. I sympathize for it.
What i'm saying is that if everything is on the external SSD this simply can't happen, it's like worrying to have a lag because a computer in another house is about to start its own HDD.

And, since having everything external can be obtained with a cheaper, faster, and bigger solution, here i am with the "eccentric" stuff that remains like, "yes i'm paying 500 bucks more for less and slower space because i don't want anything sitting on my desk".

----------

Originally Posted by hfg

It isn't the empty spinning disk I don't desire ... it is the slow access speed when moving and working through my photo library full of 25MB+ per photo files. I have already switched over to 100% SSD on my current Mac Pro because of this, and I don't intend to go back to hard disk based libraries.

It's really not the expense either, I'm not a Pro, but many of my mid-range individual lenses in my camera bag exceed the cost of a fully loaded iMac, so spending money on a computer that I use every single day isn't that big a deal, as long as I maintain an upgrade path I can live with.

For the last time, are we clear on the fact that if you buy an external 1GB SSD and leave the stock HDD empty you will obtain, for way below the price you are paying for the internal SSD:
1- 33% more SSD space
2- A faster SSD

If the above is not clear let us know, but if it is, then the points you make above should point you straight in the external SSD direction.

Internal SSD makes sense for people who do not want a device sitting on their desks and are ready to pay half a thousand dollars for this benefit, while compromising on space and performance, that's pretty much all is needed to be said.

[Richard Peters]

Originally Posted by vannibombonato

Richard, your need is clear, and i know first-hand what you're talking about. I sympathize for it.
What i'm saying is that if everything is on the external SSD this simply can't happen, it's like worrying to have a lag because a computer in another house is about to start its own HDD.

And, since having everything external can be obtained with a cheaper, faster, and bigger solution, here i am with the "eccentric" stuff that remains like, "yes i'm paying 500 bucks more for less and slower space because i don't want anything sitting on my desk

So does this mean my image browsing software wont try and access it just beacuse its there, even if only in order to determine its empty? I feel the fact the external spins up now even when nothing is being accessed makes me worry an empty internal will still spin up just because its 'seen' by my browsing software.

If thats not the case, I just need absolute confirmation that NOTHING goes on the HHD until space dictates it. I've read conflicting reports about how Fusion works but its all been based on quick plays with test units. I guess I need to wait for a few more real world prolonged reports appear, and I'm happy to wait if it confirms the slightly cheaper option might work.

[hfg]

Originally Posted by vannibombonato

For the last time, are we clear on the fact that if you buy an external 1GB SSD and leave the stock HDD empty you will obtain, for way below the price you are paying for the internal SSD:
1- 33% more SSD space
2- A faster SSD

If the above is not clear let us know, but if it is, then the points you make above should point you straight in the external SSD direction.

Internal SSD makes sense for people who do not want a device sitting on their desks and are ready to pay half a thousand dollars for this benefit, while compromising on space and performance, that's pretty much all is needed to be said.

No need to get testy ... of course that is clear to me!

I have several posts on different threads here on POTN where I have posted my test results with a DIY external ThunderBolt 1TB SSD RAID-0 built into a refurbished eBay LaCie "Little Big Disk" enclosure after removing the disk drives it came with. Unfortunately, it does require a power cable, but I have also posted speed tests with bus-powered single SSD solutions (512GB) utilizing both ThunderBolt and USB-3 enclosures. These were done with the intent of utilizing expensive SSD drives I already owned, and was using.

The results are encouraging, close to or exceeding the expected speeds of the internal SSD from Apple. There are wide speed differences between enclosures using different chip-sets for both interfaces, but through others sharing their test results the best choices in external enclosures or purchased SSD drives are becoming known.

Of course I would prefer an internal solution for a "All-In-One" computer, but realize that I will probably end up with an external solution for now, if for no other reason than jeopardizing the warranty by opening the iMac immediately. However, once that is less important to me, moving my external storage internal may interest me, but I still have to live with the limitations of only 2 drive connections, only one of which is common today, and the desire to re-use expensive SSD drives I already own.

Currently, the 768GB blade SSD is the largest available for the iMac from anyone ... and 512GB is the largest 2.5" form factor available to fit the hard disk drive space in the iMac. So choices for an all internal storage iMac are limited now, and in known future.



-howard

[CrAkD]

the whole thing is unbelievably frustrating. is it so hard to just add a 256 and 512 option? Something tells me once the launch rush is over we may see those options pop up.

[hfg]

Originally Posted by CrAkD

the whole thing is unbelievably frustrating. is it so hard to just add a 256 and 512 option? Something tells me once the launch rush is over we may see those options pop up.

Well, OWC already is selling a 480GB blade SSD for the MacPro Retina which has a good chance of also fitting the iMac ... we shall see soon when someone gets an iMac with a SSD socket.

I would expect OWC and hopefully others to exploit the upgrade market for the iMac with kits that include the SSD, special tools, and replacement tape to close it up again. They will surely have several sizes available for every budget.


-howard

[CrAkD]

Originally Posted by hfg

Well, OWC already is selling a 512GB blade SSD for the MacPro Retina which has a good chance of also fitting the iMac ... we shall see soon when someone gets an iMac with a SSD socket.

I would expect OWC and hopefully others to exploit the upgrade market for the iMac with kits that include the SSD, special tools, and replacement tape to close it up again. They will surely have several sizes available for every budget.


-howard

Yeah but with some models not having the SSD socket and having to remove the logic board to get to it even if it does its not really an option. I honestly think they are just trying to push the fusion drive and clear out the 768 blades that didnt sell in the retina. because I remember building a retina mbp and the change in price from a 512 to 768 was staggering. so I cant imagine they sold a boat load of them.

[cosmicjoke]

sure seems like there's a lot of people who don't belong to the club hanging out in this thread lol

[flynz4]

Originally Posted by smr

But (as I asked earlier ) does the fact the LaCie 1TB drive has two 512GB SSDs in RAID0 double the chance of it failing compared with the Apple internal 768GB SSD?

Originally Posted by hfg

Statistically ... yes

Realistically ... probably not for you within the useful life of the equipment

I just can't let this go. It is NOT statistically true that two drives doubles the chance of failing.

To compute this... you must multiple the probability of them NOT failing.

So for example... if a single device had a 30% chance of failure... the combination of two devices would NOT be a 60% chance of failure. Insteald... you would use the probability of a device NOT failing (70% in this case)... square it (because there are two devices). 0.7^2 is 0.49 probabability of NOT failing.... so it would be a 51% (not 60%) chance of failing.

I agree with you 100% that "realistically"... this would not be a problem. One should always assume devices will fail... which is why we have backup systems. Anyone not using a backup system either is a fool... or has data that has no value.

/Jim

[flynz4]

Originally Posted by vannibombonato

No one says you or the other guys in the club are mentally ill, it's just that the idea of spending that kind of money in order not to have the risk of having an empty drive spinning is, i think you can concede this, a bit eccentric, as with less of the money you could have a faster and bigger drive.

Again, as most of you guys agree that you'll need something on the desk besides the imac, the only reasons so far standing seems to get the internal SSD so that you don't risk the empty HDD inside the iMac spinning.

Which is fair, simply eccentric :-)

I think most of us wanting an internal SSD are less concerned with the disk spinning. It is just if we were to buy a Fusion... just to get the cheapest possible method of getting ANY internal SSD... then it would be desirable to have the disk sit idle. It is not really a big deal one way or the other.

Because of Thunderbolt... we now have access to incredible external array performance. This will just get better over time. Personally, I do not want my boot drive to be external. There is too great a chance of inadvertent surprise removal... and I prefer to avoid that. I am OK with keeping data on an external array... but it is not my first choice. I am looking forward to time when all of my data will comfortably fit on internal SSDs. By the time we get to my next iMac (2-3 years)... it will be impossible to get a machine with a HDD inside... and SSDs will be available in the 2TB range or higher.

/Jim

[iMcLovin]

Another benefit from choosing 768ssd is that you will get to use power nap. I'm curious if you will get this with fusion drive (?)

----------

Originally Posted by vannibombonato

No one says you or the other guys in the club are mentally ill, it's just that the idea of spending that kind of money in order not to have the risk of having an empty drive spinning is, i think you can concede this, a bit eccentric, as with less of the money you could have a faster and bigger drive.

Again, as most of you guys agree that you'll need something on the desk besides the imac, the only reasons so far standing seems to get the internal SSD so that you don't risk the empty HDD inside the iMac spinning.

Which is fair, simply eccentric :-)

The fusion won't be faster than the 768 ssd. It may be the same speed while using the ssd- but just a fraction of what most people have on their hdd will fit there.

So maybe a bit eccentric but also mighty fine

[forty2j]

Originally Posted by theanimala

I don't know why most people would need that much HDD. Having all of your programs on HDD I can understand, but for the average user having your music / pictures / files on CD is fast enough. Does it really make sense to have a 100MB MP3 library on HDD?

I've updated the above to reflect the opinion of circa 1992.

[Mac32]

Originally Posted by CrAkD

the whole thing is unbelievably frustrating. is it so hard to just add a 256 and 512 option? Something tells me once the launch rush is over we may see those options pop up.

Hear hear!