Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 16, 2013, 03:09 PM   #1
gnopx
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Exclamation Fusion nightmare

i'm near to buy a 2012 mid-range macmini bto@2.6ghz, i'm planning to add 16 gigs ram from crucial, and a vertex 4 128 that already own with owc's data doubler kit.

are there any troubles to use this configuration as is, two separate drive (ssd: os+app+swap and hdd: raw & itunes library)? or lastest mac osx automatically fuse it?

i hate fusion but seems that apple wants impose it.

i've read some threads about disk utility and mac osx installation that frightned me, but i hope its refers to original fusion only.

cheers.
gnopx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 03:13 PM   #2
AppleNewton
macrumors 65816
 
AppleNewton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 1 Finite Place
Fusion itself isnt really a problem, just have a back-up. as with any storage device or set-up, its essential.
AppleNewton is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 03:19 PM   #3
gnopx
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
i've put another question
gnopx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 03:45 PM   #4
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
i advise you to not do what you want.


but it can be done. you need to put the ssd in the mini fully formatted. then install osx to it with the oem drive unplugged. the mini will see just the ssd and install osx to it. then plug the oem back in. Then the mini will see 2 drives you will get to pick the one you want to boot with via preferences.

i advise not doing what you want because it is not easy to do and you are risking a lot for adding a small ssd.

the kit is 38 with shipping. you want the ssd to be independent it is small. so it can fill easy. the ssd is ocz a company that has a history of crash and burn ssd's. also they may go out of business soon. see link

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2302207

but WTF why not if you want to do it.
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 03:53 PM   #5
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnopx View Post
i'm near to buy a 2012 mid-range macmini bto@2.6ghz, i'm planning to add 16 gigs ram from crucial, and a vertex 4 128 that already own with owc's data doubler kit.

are there any troubles to use this configuration as is, two separate drive (ssd: os+app+swap and hdd: raw & itunes library)? or lastest mac osx automatically fuse it?

i hate fusion but seems that apple wants impose it.

i've read some threads about disk utility and mac osx installation that frightned me, but i hope its refers to original fusion only.
Can you change the thread title to "Nightmare caused by irrational fear of fusion"? Why would you "hate fusion"? It's a brilliant idea that gives you the speed of SSD with the size of HD at a reasonable price, and the only thing hard to understand is why it hasn't been implemented on PCs many years ago.
gnasher729 is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 05:23 PM   #6
gnopx
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
Can you change the thread title to "Nightmare caused by irrational fear of fusion"? Why would you "hate fusion"? It's a brilliant idea that gives you the speed of SSD with the size of HD at a reasonable price, and the only thing hard to understand is why it hasn't been implemented on PCs many years ago.
in my old mini, i had a intel g2 ssd and 500 hdd, an all work flawlessly...

so you confirm me that now, when ML find an ssd and hdd connected automatically try to fuse it during installation?
gnopx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 05:52 PM   #7
gnopx
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
if i buy a fusion drive can i partition it? es. 228gb and 900gb

so if i put in the first partition max 100gb of stuff i'm sure that they are in ssd, and the stuff i put in the second partition stay in hdd or i'm wrong?
gnopx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 06:40 PM   #8
gnopx
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
found it! perfect!!!

http://macperformanceguide.com/Fusion-partitioning.html

i will buy 2012 mini@2.6 with fusion and split in 186-926 volumes. so i can control fusion drive.
gnopx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 08:34 PM   #9
jjk454ss
macrumors 68040
 
jjk454ss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
but it can be done. you need to put the ssd in the mini fully formatted. then install osx to it with the oem drive unplugged. the mini will see just the ssd and install osx to it. then plug the oem back in. Then the mini will see 2 drives you will get to pick the one you want to boot with via preferences.
I just got my SSD today, I plan on installing it tonight or tomorrow as a Fusion setup. This is the first I heard about plugging in only the SSD, then installing OSX, then plug in the HDD. Can I not just install both, then select the SSD to install OSX to? What's the reason to not plug in the HDD right away?

I wish I could find one definitive set of instructions, I keep hearing different things in different places.
jjk454ss is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 09:35 PM   #10
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjk454ss View Post
I just got my SSD today, I plan on installing it tonight or tomorrow as a Fusion setup. This is the first I heard about plugging in only the SSD, then installing OSX, then plug in the HDD. Can I not just install both, then select the SSD to install OSX to? What's the reason to not plug in the HDD right away?

I wish I could find one definitive set of instructions, I keep hearing different things in different places.
MY instruction are for no fusion ssd + hdd , but 2 separate bootable drives.

Do not use my instructions if you want fusion.
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 09:53 PM   #11
jjk454ss
macrumors 68040
 
jjk454ss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
MY instruction are for no fusion ssd + hdd , but 2 separate bootable drives.

Do not use my instructions if you want fusion.
Ok, I read that wrong then. Thanks
jjk454ss is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 02:43 AM   #12
benwiggy
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnopx View Post
i will buy 2012 mini@2.6 with fusion and split in 186-926 volumes. so i can control fusion drive.
CoreStorage can "control" your files much better than you can. It can move file blocks individually, which you can't (i.e. different blocks of the same file on different drives). It can move data between the drives while keeping the same file path hierarchy (unless you enjoy making sym links of things all the time).

If you want to spend time moving your files about yourself, then fine. don't use Fusion. But you won't have better control of your files than Fusion can achieve.
benwiggy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 02:47 AM   #13
Lancer
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleNewton View Post
Fusion itself isnt really a problem, just have a back-up. as with any storage device or set-up, its essential.
+1

I have Time Machine but I also plan to do a full CCC backup tonight and do that every week or so.
__________________
Late 2012 iMac, 27", 3.4Ghz i7, 32Gb RAM, 2Gb 680Mx, 1Tb Fusion and iPhone 5s.
Lancer is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 04:36 AM   #14
xlii
macrumors 68000
 
xlii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millis, Massachusetts
I don't get this fear of fusion that keeps getting posted in the Mac Mini section of Macrumors. Fusion or not... if you have 2 drives in your machine and one of them fails you had better have a backup to restore your data from. Plus 2 fusion drives have the same chance of failure as 2 drives that are not in a fusion array so why the fear?
xlii is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 07:00 AM   #15
benwiggy
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlii View Post
I don't get this fear of fusion that keeps getting posted in the Mac Mini section of Macrumors. Fusion or not... if you have 2 drives in your machine and one of them fails you had better have a backup to restore your data from. Plus 2 fusion drives have the same chance of failure as 2 drives that are not in a fusion array so why the fear?
Very true. And yet people who denigrate Fusion often talk about setting up a RAID 0 volume!
benwiggy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:10 AM   #16
paulrbeers
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlii View Post
I don't get this fear of fusion that keeps getting posted in the Mac Mini section of Macrumors. Fusion or not... if you have 2 drives in your machine and one of them fails you had better have a backup to restore your data from. Plus 2 fusion drives have the same chance of failure as 2 drives that are not in a fusion array so why the fear?
While I completely agree, the one advantage of 2 drives is that a lot of times what is on my "data" disk matters very little to me so if it fails I can continue on my day and recover/replace at a later date and time. With Fusion if either drive fails, you have to do the recovery now. You have no choice. With that said, if my OS drive fails in either scenario I'm doing the recovery ASAP so it only is sort of advantageous in this scenario to not Fusion. I did not setup a fusion drive on my 2012 (at least not yet) even though I am running a 240GB SSD and the stock 1GB drive. That was largely due to laziness though. I just didn't want to take the time to go thru the internet recover process when I got it.
__________________
rMBP 11,2 15" 2.0Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
MBA 6,2 13" 1.7Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
Mac Mini 6,2 2.3ghz w/ 240GB SSD + 1TB
Mac Pro 1,1 w/ 8 cores @ 2.66 w/ 240GB SSD
paulrbeers is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:15 AM   #17
Brian Y
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Personally, I like to control my own data - I want to decide what goes on the SSD and on the HDD.

I have the OS + apps etc installed on the SSD, including my home folder. I then symlink stuff like my Documents, Music etc folders over to the HDD. That way, you get the benefits of the SSD for things that need it, but other crap doesn't touch it.
Brian Y is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:26 AM   #18
spammerhamster
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Y View Post
Personally, I like to control my own data - I want to decide what goes on the SSD and on the HDD.

I have the OS + apps etc installed on the SSD, including my home folder. I then symlink stuff like my Documents, Music etc folders over to the HDD. That way, you get the benefits of the SSD for things that need it, but other crap doesn't touch it.
I'm always amazed how people just tend to make things complicated for themselves...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnopx View Post
i hate fusion but seems that apple wants impose it.
How does Apple impose it to you?
And how do you hate things when you don't even understand how it works?
spammerhamster is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:34 AM   #19
Brian Y
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by spammerhamster View Post
I'm always amazed how people just tend to make things complicated for themselves...
it's not complicated at all. It takes about 1 min (1 ln -s terminal command for each folder) to set up after a fresh install, and gives the best possible performance (stuff you want to be fast is *always* on the SSD, and you aren't wasting write cycles by writing stuff that doesn't need to be written to the SSD). Plus, if the SSD fails - I don't lose my data as you would in a fusion drive.

In fact, I bet I could do that quicker than I could setup a fusion drive in disk utility from a HDD and non-Apple SSD :P.
Brian Y is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 03:07 PM   #20
Fishrrman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
"i hate fusion but seems that apple wants impose it."

So long as you don't try to run Disk Utility from the recovery partition, I don't think you'll get a "forced conversion" of an SSD and a HDD into a "fused" drive.

One way to BE SURE this won't happen is to install your SSD into a USB3 enclosure or docking station, and boot via USB3. In this case, Disk Utility won't try to "repair" the two drives, because one is attached externally.

If you get the right USB3 enclosure or docking station, you won't lose much in the way of speed -- read times will be the equivalent of an internally-mounted drive, and write speeds just slightly slower.

You want one with either an
ASMedia 1051e controller chip
or an
ASMedia 1053 controller chip.

I use such a dock, and get read speeds of 410mbps and write speeds of 247mbps (used with an Intel 520 series drive).

Last edited by Fishrrman; Feb 18, 2013 at 04:22 PM.
Fishrrman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 12:59 PM   #21
Mike in Kansas
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Kansas City
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Y View Post
Personally, I like to control my own data - I want to decide what goes on the SSD and on the HDD.

I have the OS + apps etc installed on the SSD, including my home folder. I then symlink stuff like my Documents, Music etc folders over to the HDD. That way, you get the benefits of the SSD for things that need it, but other crap doesn't touch it.
Using your method, you can only control where things go on a file or application or package level. Fusion controls it down to the block level.

If I want my Aperture experience to be snappy, the Library should be installed on my SSD. But my 120GB library now takes up half of my SSD, although I may only actively use ~5% of that Library. Fusion will install that Library so the most touched items in it are on the SSD, and the least touched on the HDD, thereby conserving SSD space for blocks of data that matter. You can't do that with symlinks.
__________________
13" 2012 MBA/i7/8GB/256GB
24" 2008 iMac/2.8GHz/6GB/240GB SSD & 2TB FW800 HDD "Fused"
2GB TC; ATV 3; 32GB iPad 4; iPhone 5
Left Nikon for Fuji X-E1, Fujinon 18-55mm OIS, 55-200mm OIS, 27mm f/2.8
Mike in Kansas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 01:42 PM   #22
Brian Y
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in Kansas View Post
Using your method, you can only control where things go on a file or application or package level. Fusion controls it down to the block level.

If I want my Aperture experience to be snappy, the Library should be installed on my SSD. But my 120GB library now takes up half of my SSD, although I may only actively use ~5% of that Library. Fusion will install that Library so the most touched items in it are on the SSD, and the least touched on the HDD, thereby conserving SSD space for blocks of data that matter. You can't do that with symlinks.
How do you *know* it's doing that though? You have no way of knowing what's where.

The way I do it - it's my choice what goes where. If I want the entire aperture library on the SSD, my choice. If I want it on the HDD, my choice. If I want it on my SSD with the masters/originals folder on the HDD - my choice. Fusion doesn't give you any control at all. Say I play a game twice a week - but I don't care how fast that loads up - do I want all 10GB of said game on the SSD automatically? Probably not. What about things such as your Spotify cache? That's accessed all of the time, so fusion will move it to the SSD - but does it need to be there? The HDD will perform adequately for caching like that.

I like to think I know what I want fast access to better than the computer does. It's like anything in life - if you take the time and effort to get it perfect, and know what you're doing, it's worth it. For the average joe, Fusion will be an improvement, but if you're a power user - and know your way around - there's better options.

Some people might like the ease of use of Fusion - but personally, I've put a lot of effort into making my hardware as fast as possible - to not do the same on the software side would be odd.
Brian Y is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 03:45 PM   #23
donlab
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Y View Post
How do you *know* it's doing that though? You have no way of knowing what's where.

The way I do it - it's my choice what goes where. If I want the entire aperture library on the SSD, my choice. If I want it on the HDD, my choice. If I want it on my SSD with the masters/originals folder on the HDD - my choice. Fusion doesn't give you any control at all. Say I play a game twice a week - but I don't care how fast that loads up - do I want all 10GB of said game on the SSD automatically? Probably not. What about things such as your Spotify cache? That's accessed all of the time, so fusion will move it to the SSD - but does it need to be there? The HDD will perform adequately for caching like that.

I like to think I know what I want fast access to better than the computer does. It's like anything in life - if you take the time and effort to get it perfect, and know what you're doing, it's worth it. For the average joe, Fusion will be an improvement, but if you're a power user - and know your way around - there's better options.

Some people might like the ease of use of Fusion - but personally, I've put a lot of effort into making my hardware as fast as possible - to not do the same on the software side would be odd.
CoreStorage doesnt work like that. Its block level not file level. It moves hot blocks between tiers. It could be just a few MB in total of that game you play, same for spotify cache, iphoto library etc. Embrace storage virtualization, its more cost effective. You are storing your data in a pool of disk space called a logical volume group consisting of SSD and HDD. CoreStorage moves the blocks around in the background while your files live in the pool. Power user / average joe argument doesn't apply.
donlab is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 09:22 PM   #24
Mike in Kansas
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Kansas City
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Y View Post
How do you *know* it's doing that though? You have no way of knowing what's where.

The way I do it - it's my choice what goes where. If I want the entire aperture library on the SSD, my choice. If I want it on the HDD, my choice. If I want it on my SSD with the masters/originals folder on the HDD - my choice. Fusion doesn't give you any control at all. Say I play a game twice a week - but I don't care how fast that loads up - do I want all 10GB of said game on the SSD automatically? Probably not. What about things such as your Spotify cache? That's accessed all of the time, so fusion will move it to the SSD - but does it need to be there? The HDD will perform adequately for caching like that.

I like to think I know what I want fast access to better than the computer does. It's like anything in life - if you take the time and effort to get it perfect, and know what you're doing, it's worth it. For the average joe, Fusion will be an improvement, but if you're a power user - and know your way around - there's better options.

Some people might like the ease of use of Fusion - but personally, I've put a lot of effort into making my hardware as fast as possible - to not do the same on the software side would be odd.
I've been a "power user" for quite a while, and have been managing my content between my boot drive and external drives, and then my internal SSD and external drives for quite a while. I knew where EVERY file was, and spent time juggling files back and forth in order to optimize my user experience. Since creating my home-made Fusion drive I now get the same user experience - actually a BETTER user experience - without any intervention on my part. I may be a "power user" but not such a technology snob to not adopt something that saves time and let me focus my energy on something else.

I KNOW FusionDrive works the way I described as I can watch how each individual drive in the FusionDrive is read from and written to by watching them in iStat Menus. I also trust the assessment from Anandtech and they see the same thing, so that's good enough for me.
__________________
13" 2012 MBA/i7/8GB/256GB
24" 2008 iMac/2.8GHz/6GB/240GB SSD & 2TB FW800 HDD "Fused"
2GB TC; ATV 3; 32GB iPad 4; iPhone 5
Left Nikon for Fuji X-E1, Fujinon 18-55mm OIS, 55-200mm OIS, 27mm f/2.8
Mike in Kansas is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 10:28 PM   #25
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in Kansas View Post
I've been a "power user" for quite a while, and have been managing my content between my boot drive and external drives, and then my internal SSD and external drives for quite a while. I knew where EVERY file was, and spent time juggling files back and forth in order to optimize my user experience. Since creating my home-made Fusion drive I now get the same user experience - actually a BETTER user experience - without any intervention on my part. I may be a "power user" but not such a technology snob to not adopt something that saves time and let me focus my energy on something else.

I KNOW FusionDrive works the way I described as I can watch how each individual drive in the FusionDrive is read from and written to by watching them in iStat Menus. I also trust the assessment from Anandtech and they see the same thing, so that's good enough for me.
YEAH IT IS IRONIC Apple has come up with a great piece of tech. and people are afraid of it.

They allow you to make a DIY version. I have a 500gb ssd and a 1tb hdd in a quad mini. I have a 250gb ssd and a 500gb hdd in a dual mini.

People don't think it is good .

people don't think it works better then there own management system.

I think I finally have a mac with perfect drive setup. took me years to get one. I will say my 2010 mac pro was pretty good with drive setup. But this is better. the mini and a promise pegasus r6 have allowed me to have exactly what i want in drive management. I had a 2x 500gb raid0 ssd in the pegasus. but when the fusion came out i setup the 1.5 tb fusion and use the pegasus as tm cloned backups and storage.. I finally have speed size and redundancy in a small not tiny setup since the pegasus has size to it.

I have 19.5 tb of space. I can expand it to 25.5tb.

I have 2 clones of the fusion and a tm. I can ignore all the managing of info for weeks on end. I do need to empty the fusion once in a while but that is a simple click and drag to the pegasus.
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Advice please: Fusion OR Partitioned SSD and Fusion? robu64 iMac 3 Feb 28, 2014 12:24 PM
Poll & Opinion: Go Fusion or Non-Fusion WizardHunt iMac 73 Feb 6, 2013 09:49 AM
Fusion 5 Vmware Converter lists only up to Fusion 4.x. Will it work? kristenanne77 Mac mini 2 Jan 2, 2013 08:54 PM
Fusion confusion. Why no bootcamp on 3TB Fusion but OK on 1TB Fusion inscrewtable OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion 1 Dec 11, 2012 10:21 PM
Should I get 1TB Fusion or 3TB non Fusion? frocco iMac 9 Dec 6, 2012 09:26 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC