Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:38 PM   #26
justinfreid
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NEW Jersey / USA
 
Send a message via ICQ to justinfreid Send a message via AIM to justinfreid Send a message via MSN to justinfreid Send a message via Yahoo to justinfreid Send a message via Skype™ to justinfreid
Will it work with older hardware?

In my 13" MacBook Pro I currently have a fast SSD in my optical bay and an upgraded 1TB hard drive in the hard drive bay. I've sort of tried to roll my own Fusion Drive by moving things around as necessary.

Any leads on whether the Fusion Drive technology can be applied to configurations without Apple's blessing? Phil Schiller mentioned that the logic was already built into OS X.
__________________
inThirty.net - New, 30 minute, tech podcast on iTunes
JustinFreid.com | Twitter.com/JustinFreid | Facebook.com/JustinFreid
Think different? Install OS X on anything x86 / Jailbreak iOS
justinfreid is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:38 PM   #27
iphoneclassic
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
EMC Storage frames have this built in feature for years. This is nothing new but a cheaper way to do it. It is probably two drives one SSD and HDD in one box and OS X can do the swap.
iphoneclassic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:40 PM   #28
Aidan5806
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesterJJZ View Post
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.
How is that asking for trouble?
__________________
Aidan Maycock: Future CEO of Apple, inc.
Aidan5806 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:40 PM   #29
HiRez
macrumors 601
 
HiRez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Western US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy69 View Post
I'm not too happy with the current price for the fusion upgrade ($250 for the mac mini).
Look at it this way: Apple will charge you $200 to add 48 GB to your iPad flash storage (16 --> 64). OK, maybe that doesn't help :P
__________________
Go outside, the graphics are amazing!
HiRez is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:40 PM   #30
lunarworks
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post
most of us do not need that bigger size as main drive, you always need to backup the data into some external drive.
Some of us have a whole ton of music, photos, and other media that we like to be able to access on occasion but don't need the speed of an SSD to do so. This is an ideal middle ground.
lunarworks is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:41 PM   #31
Cory Bauer
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Send a message via ICQ to Cory Bauer
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesterJJZ View Post
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.
Yeah, with this Fusion thing you're giving up one of the big advantages of SSD; reliability.
Cory Bauer is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:41 PM   #32
Zandros
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Cache would imply that the data on the SSD is duplicated, and it's not.
That's a silly distinction to make. AMD's processors have used exclusive caches for years, where data is not duplicated across cache levels. I'm not sure why we should have a different definition for caches for secondary storage.

Also, if data is not duplicated, where does the extra 128 GB go? (Honest question.)
Zandros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:42 PM   #33
arn
macrumors god
 
arn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Send a message via AIM to arn
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
and most likely that's exactly what it is. It has been available on PCs for a while.
read the article again. seems different

arn
arn is offline   21 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:42 PM   #34
Cougarcat
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond3 View Post
I really hope this feature becomes available to other macs that have an SSD and HDD already installed. Even the previous generation iMacs you could have an SSD and HDD installed by Apple. If they open it up to other computers, I'll look forward to installing it on my Macbook Pro with the dual drives instead of the optical drive.
The only thing that's preventing me from putting an optibay in my MBP is that I don't want to worry about what files are on what drive. If Apple provided an option to "fuse" an SSD and HD in Disk Uitility, I'd run out and buy an SSD for my Hackintosh and an optibay for my MBP in an instant.

I don't think they'll add such an option, though.
Cougarcat is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:43 PM   #35
arn
macrumors god
 
arn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Send a message via AIM to arn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros View Post
That's a silly distinction to make. AMD's processors have used exclusive caches for years, where data is not duplicated across cache levels. I'm not sure why we should have a different definition for caches for secondary storage.

Also, if data is not duplicated, where does the extra 128 GB go? (Honest question.)
It sounds like it's not duplicated. You have 128GB extra space. Files are either on the SSD or the HD, not both.

Quote:
If you have a 1TB mechanical drive paired with the 128GB SSD, you have a 1.12 TB storage platform.
arn
arn is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:43 PM   #36
makingdots
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by praetorian909 View Post
Very interesting, though I'm wondering what if one of those drives fail. Is your data retrievable from the other one?
Doesn't matter. We have Time Machine.
makingdots is offline   14 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:43 PM   #37
HiRez
macrumors 601
 
HiRez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Western US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post
Yeah, with this Fusion thing you're giving up one of the big advantages of SSD; reliability.
Well, it depends what perspective you have, what you're comparing it to. If you compare it to a straight up SSD, sure. If you compare it to a traditional hard disk, no. Hey, it's a hybrid, compromise technology. Yes, you could get a much faster, much more reliable SSD, but you'd also pay many hundreds or even thousands of dollars for it.
__________________
Go outside, the graphics are amazing!
HiRez is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:44 PM   #38
Dwalls90
macrumors 68040
 
Dwalls90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiRez View Post
The way I see it, this is a variation of what OS X has been using for a long time: moving frequently used files to the faster "hot zone" on the outside of the drive (faster rotational speed). But here, the "hot zone" is a separate flash storage drive instead of being on the same hard disk. But sounds like cool technology. Is it all contained in a single unit? Can it be replaced easily, or as a single unit?

Unfortunately, where I need speed is for my ~150 GB of RAW photos, and it looks like the flash storage component is too small to fully benefit me there. The hard drive on my 2011 iMac is deathly slow, my MacBook Air is WAY faster, despite technically being much lower-specced. That SSD makes all the difference in the world.
Didn't know this, very interesting.

Maybe you could upgrade the 128Gb SSD to a third party 256Gb SSD?

Or Maybe 256Gb will be a BTO I'm assuming ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinfreid View Post
In my 13" MacBook Pro I currently have a fast SSD in my optical bay and an upgraded 1TB hard drive in the hard drive bay. I've sort of tried to roll my own Fusion Drive by moving things around as necessary.

Any leads on whether the Fusion Drive technology can be applied to configurations without Apple's blessing? Phil Schiller mentioned that the logic was already built into OS X.
This is a really great question and I'm curious to know the answer.

I would have to guess, no.

Why?

1.) It's likely a reason they will push you to upgrade to a newer Mac, much how like Siri runs on the iPad 2 and iPhone 4, yet Apple software restricts it.

2.) It may be a mother/logic-board limitation that requires on a controller to maintain this functionality. Likely if such a chip is required, it's not on your mother/logic-board of your MBP, so I doubt it.

But these are both assumptions.
__________________
rMBP 4850HQ & iPhone 6
Dwalls90 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:45 PM   #39
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
How cool is it that a company with almost $1T in capital value can employ Automated Tiered Storage (EMC Storage frames) to all its consumer level users (except lowest end iMacs and Mac-Minis) with over 200m users!

Hi Arn.
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All 357 R or D House jobs bills over 4 years died in the D Senate, ordered by the D President. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.
Rocketman is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:47 PM   #40
theBB
macrumors 68020
 
theBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
How much for the upgrade?
theBB is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:47 PM   #41
Avatarshark
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Digital Frontier
I wonder when will they release a separate Fusion drives for people who want to upgrade their MacBook Pro, well for those people who's hard drive isn't fused (get it) to the motherboard.
Avatarshark is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:48 PM   #42
Death-T
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Send a message via MSN to Death-T
This sounds pretty cool. It would suck if one of the drives failed, but that's why you use Time Machine anyway.
__________________
Macbook Pro with Retina Display|2.6 Ghz|8 GB RAM|512 GB SSD::21.5" Aluminum iMac|2.5 GHz |12 GB RAM|500 GB HD::16 GB iPad 2::16 GB iPhone 4S [Jailbroken]::Apple TV 3
Death-T is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:49 PM   #43
WardC
macrumors 68020
 
WardC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Send a message via AIM to WardC
My iMac is already fast as it is, I have an OWC 120GB 6G Solid-State drive to keep my OS X System and all of my Applications, and then on my 1TB internal I store my iTunes music, movies, and photos, video, and media files. It works out perfectly.


I would rather have a dedicated SSD and a separate hard disk, not this "FUSION" deal -- I would like to make sure the SSD is ONLY being used for my system and Applications, which need the extra speed constantly.
__________________
iMac 27" 3.4GHz i7 SSD 16GB RAM
MacBook Pro 15-inch 2.6GHz i7 256GB SSD/ 16GB RAM

Thinking about Apple...
WardC is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:49 PM   #44
CausticPuppy
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2012
Seems there should eventually be some sort of hack to enable "Fusion" (Automated Tiered Storage) on any mac that has both an SSD and HDD.
__________________
2011 Mac Mini Server, 16 GB RAM, 256GB Crucial M4 SSD, 500GB HDD + 3TB NAS
Haswell rMBP 13" - i7/512GB
Mac Mini 1.83GHz Core2Duo, 3GB RAM, 60GB SSD
iPad Air/iPhone5S
CausticPuppy is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:50 PM   #45
foidulus
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesterJJZ View Post
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.
Not from a users perspective. While it's true that the drives form one logical tree(thanks to the underlying OS being a clean UNIX and not that *other* OS that insists on mapping the logical layout to the physical one....) having 2 drives is "mostly" seamless....until you fill up your SSD drive. Trying to explain mount points and why /Users is different than / to a non-techie is probably a futile endeavor, the hybrid drive basically ensures that as long as they don't fill up the hard disk you won't run out of space.
foidulus is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:51 PM   #46
roland.g
macrumors 603
 
roland.g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: One mile up and soaring
I would hope that this means anyone with a 2011 iMac factory shipped with a SSD and a HDD would be able to gain this advantage via a software upgrade to Mountain Lion but something tells me that this will not be the case.
__________________
I know this because Tyler knows this.
You are not a beautiful snowflake. You are the same decaying matter as everything else.
roland.g is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:53 PM   #47
arn
macrumors god
 
arn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Send a message via AIM to arn
Quote:
Originally Posted by foidulus View Post
Not from a users perspective. While it's true that the drives form one logical tree(thanks to the underlying OS being a clean UNIX and not that *other* OS that insists on mapping the logical layout to the physical one....) having 2 drives is "mostly" seamless....until you fill up your SSD drive. Trying to explain mount points and why /Users is different than / to a non-techie is probably a futile endeavor, the hybrid drive basically ensures that as long as they don't fill up the hard disk you won't run out of space.
yep. This is the "buy an SSD + HDD" for the masses who don't know what SSD and HDD stand for, but oh hey - my computer is fast now!

arn
arn is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:53 PM   #48
ohbrilliance
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunaoso View Post
I agree. Perfect for now until SSDs drop in price.
The cost of flash memory has already dropped to about $0.66/GB, but Apple is maintaining between $1.95/GB (macs) and $6.25/GB (16 to 32GB iPad) for their SSD prices.
ohbrilliance is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:54 PM   #49
Lancer
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
So does this mean we either have a 1Tb or 3Tb choice on the 27" and no 2Tb option?
Lancer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 09:56 PM   #50
drsmithy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros View Post
That's a silly distinction to make. AMD's processors have used exclusive caches for years, where data is not duplicated across cache levels. I'm not sure why we should have a different definition for caches for secondary storage.
The data isn't duplicated across cache levels, but it is a duplicate of data that exists elsewhere on the system (RAM, hard disk, etc).

Also, the data in your CPU caches does not need to be persistent. The same does not apply to the data on your hard disk(s).
drsmithy is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hybrid drive or fusion? Jacksonc MacBook 4 Feb 4, 2014 04:51 AM
Haswell iMac - Fusion drive or No Fusion drive? NbinHD iMac 14 Sep 24, 2013 02:00 PM
Fusion Drive VS Seagate Hybrid Freakstyles MacBook Pro 2 Jun 13, 2013 05:21 AM
Going from a rig with 7200 drive, will the 5400 side of a Fusion drive annoy me? Whackintosh iMac 9 Feb 25, 2013 04:46 PM
27in 2011 iMac Fusion Drive & removing optical drive ZMacintosh iMac 1 Jan 21, 2013 11:24 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 AM.

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

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