Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:26 PM   #76
Diode
macrumors 68020
 
Diode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington DC
Send a message via AIM to Diode
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesterJJZ View Post
What is the procedure when one of the two drives fail? Seems like a Raid0 scenario.
Sounds like a SPAN/BIG array, with clever software/hardware moving stuff around.

There doesn't seem to be any striping between the two so if one drive fails then the other should be recoverable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
I don't think you understand what the issue is. You have 2 drives now per filesystem rather than 1 so have theoretically doubled the failure rate. This is why Raid 0 drives are considered a more dangerous set up. If the SSD or HDD fails, the data could all be lost depending on how Apple set up the filesystem. It has nothing to do with journaling or backups.
Raid 0 is dangerous because each file is essentially split between he two drives meaning one disk failing will render your entire system unrecoverable. The fusion drive doesn't seem to be doing this, the file is either on the SSD or the HD so a drive failure should mean the other disk can be recovered.
__________________
16GB iPhone 4; 2.4 GHZ C2D iMac 4GB Ram; 32GB iPad2; AppleTV2

Last edited by Diode; Oct 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM.
Diode is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:27 PM   #77
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
On second thought, it still looks similar to SRT but most likely is not based on one. SRT is a software solution (for a moment I thought it was implemented in a chipset) and it's unlikely that Apple would be even able to use it. Apparently Apple developed similar (software based) solution.
Nah, SRT works at the disk level. Based on Phil's descriptions, Fusion drive seems to be file system level. Different technology altogether even though their goals may be similar.
viacavour is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:27 PM   #78
DisMyMac
macrumors 65816
 
DisMyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Jbod ???
DisMyMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:28 PM   #79
tod
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ohio
Best new Mac feature Apple has come out with in a long time. Stuff like Power Nap isn't terribly significant, but Fusion is.

It's nice how writes happen to the SSD, then are moved to the HD later. Looks like a good implementation. Too bad we're most likely stuck with sucky HFS+ if we want to use Fusion. For me, data integrity trumps speed, so I'll stick with my dual partition HFS+ / ZFS solution for now.
__________________
Developer of the American Almanac
tod is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:31 PM   #80
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
I don't think you understand what the issue is. You have 2 drives now per filesystem rather than 1 so have theoretically doubled the failure rate. This is why Raid 0 drives are considered a more dangerous set up. If the SSD or HDD fails, the data could all be lost depending on how Apple set up the filesystem. It has nothing to do with journaling or backups.
Yes, the more hardware you have, the more likely one of them will fail.

But it looks like Fusion Drive works at the file system level. A disk failure would have caused a write fail. During copying, the original file in the other disk should still be intact. They won't delete the file until everything is copied over successfully.

Even if one of the disks failed, you just go to your backup. Everything else stays the same.

A RAID setup is much more lower level. Hence once it's messed up, it could be more difficult to recover in-place.
viacavour is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:31 PM   #81
hkechoes
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
I'm wondering if this "fusion drive" is having any technical/business/licensing connection to the company "Fusion IO" from which the other Steve (Woz) is the chief scientist.
hkechoes is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:31 PM   #82
Freyqq
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
so it is seen in osx as 1.128 tb?
Freyqq is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:34 PM   #83
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
Nah, SRT works at the disk level. Based on Phil's descriptions, Fusion drive seems to be file system level. Different technology altogether even though their goals may be similar.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/i...caching-review

Quote:
Make no mistake, this isn't a hardware feature but it's something that Intel is only enabling on Z68. All of the work is done entirely in Intel's RST 10.5 software, which will be made available for all 6-series chipsets but Smart Response Technology is artificially bound to Z68 alone (and some mobile chipsets—HM67, QM67).
Ironically, Apple used Z68 in the previous iMacs.
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:35 PM   #84
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/i...caching-review



Ironically, Apple used Z68 in the previous iMacs.
SRT is implemented in Z68 motherboard firmware. Fusion Drive is an OS technology based on how Phil described it. Not the same thing at all. They deal with different level of stuff. Fusion Drive is higher level, hence less risky or damage can be more localized.
viacavour is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:37 PM   #85
xVeinx
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
I don't think you understand what the issue is. You have 2 drives now per filesystem rather than 1 so have theoretically doubled the failure rate. This is why Raid 0 drives are considered a more dangerous set up. If the SSD or HDD fails, the data could all be lost depending on how Apple set up the filesystem. It has nothing to do with journaling or backups.
Raid 0 stripes the data between two drives, so loss of one would make the information on the other useless. In this case, files on the one drive that remains should be intact; this setup would be more sophisticated than lvm in linux, for instance. However, the basic point is that one ought to treat this as a single drive. If a hard drive fails, you get it replaced and pull from your backup. Its the same issue you'd run into with a OS drive and a data drive, essentially. Rescue what you can, then reinstall.
xVeinx is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:38 PM   #86
Daringescape
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CA
I basically do this already without software on my MBP. I have a 120GB SSD drive as my boot drive with my applications, and a 500GB 7200 RPM drive in place of the optical drive. My machine boots in about 13 seconds, and applications open super fast. I even store most of the files I am currently working on on the SSD drive. It really is great.
__________________
This is my signature, there are many like it; but this one is mine.
Daringescape is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:40 PM   #87
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx View Post
Raid 0 stripes the data between two drives, so loss of one would make the information on the other useless. In this case, files on the one drive that remains should be intact; this setup would be more sophisticated than lvm in linux, for instance. However, the basic point is that one ought to treat this as a single drive. If a hard drive fails, you get it replaced and pull from your backup. Its the same issue you'd run into with a OS drive and a data drive, essentially. Rescue what you can, then reinstall.
Yes but multiple drives increase the probability of failure. With Fusion, if 1 drive fails the machine is likely to be rendered useless (depending on where the files have ended up) until the drive is repaired which on an iMac means a trip to Apple.
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:40 PM   #88
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daringescape View Post
I basically do this already without software on my MBP. I have a 120GB SSD drive as my boot drive with my applications, and a 500GB 7200 RPM drive in place of the optical drive. My machine boots in about 13 seconds, and applications open super fast. I even store most of the files I am currently working on on the SSD drive. It really is great.
Pretty much. Except that OSX does this for you behind the scene. I want the same thing for my MBA though.
viacavour is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:42 PM   #89
kas23
macrumors 603
 
kas23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by petsounds View Post
Fusion Drive is the first "wow" moment I've had during an Apple PR event in a long time, probably not since the original iPhone launch (when it was more like one hour-long wow). It shows they are still doing some innovation beyond "making it lighter and thinner".
But is this really innovation or repackaging, which is what Apple does the best? For example, I have had a "Fusion drive" in my 2012 Mac Mini for months now. I added in a 128gb SSD, which I use as my boot drive plus applications and use the existing drive for media. Is it innovation for Apple to do what customers have already been doing for over a year? The only thing different is that the Fusion drive is seen as 1 solidity drive, rather than 2, making it more user friendly (again, what Apple does the best).
kas23 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:43 PM   #90
brdeveloper
macrumors 68000
 
brdeveloper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brasil
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECUpirate44 View Post
Love the technology, hate the "Fusion" logo.
Samsung calls it ExpressCache. Sony may use another name and so on. Apple innovates once more with a cooler term for the same old tech.
__________________
15" rMBP Early-2013, 2.4GHz. After 3 display replacements, I'm still seeing uniformity problems.
2009 Unibody White MacBook, 250GB 840 EVO SSD, 8GB
Mid-2010 MacMini, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD, 16GB
brdeveloper is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:43 PM   #91
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
Yes but multiple drives increase the probability of failure. With Fusion, if 1 drive fails the machine is likely to be rendered useless (depending on where the files have ended up) until the drive is repaired which on an iMac means a trip to Apple.
Nope. If the boot volume does, the machine needs to be reinstalled. If the data part dies, you just lose whatever files was damaged.

Without Fusion drive, the user would have same failure rate for his regular HDD like everyone else. With Fusion drive, the other "disk" is SSD. There's no mechanical movement, should have lower failure rate compared to a moving disk.
viacavour is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:43 PM   #92
drsmithy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stetrain View Post
In a drive failure with fusion it seems like you would be left with a functioning drive containing the files that were on it at the time of failure.
It depends a lot on implementation details. While the data on the remaining drive being present would be technically true regardless, practically speaking it might no longer be accessible because all the filesystem metadata describing it might depend on both disks.
drsmithy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:45 PM   #93
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
Nope. If the boot volume does, the machine needs to be reinstalled. If the data part dies, you just lose whatever files was damaged.

Without Fusion drive, the user would have same failure rate for his regular HDD like everyone else. With Fusion drive, the other "disk" is SSD. There's no mechanical movement, should have lower failure rate compared to a moving disk.
SSD's can and do have high failure rates. What if some of the boot files "migrate" to the HDD? Or are some files locked to the SSD?
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:45 PM   #94
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kas23 View Post
But is this really innovation or repackaging, which is what Apple does the best? For example, I have had a "Fusion drive" in my 2012 Mac Mini for months now. I added in a 128gb SSD, which I use as my boot drive plus applications and use the existing drive for media. Is it innovation for Apple to do what customers have already been doing for over a year? The only thing different is that the Fusion drive is seen as 1 solidity drive, rather than 2, making it more user friendly (again, what Apple does the best).
Of course it is. People have been doing manual work for hundreds and thousands of years before computer was invented. Automating them doesn't mean it's not innovative. In fact, a lot of innovation may go into making things work faster.
viacavour is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:47 PM   #95
Platskies
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericinboston View Post
Apple is so worried about having more than 1 logical and physical drive in all the Macs...as if humans can't remember that drive1 is for the apps/OS while drive2 is for all the data (music, vids, documents, movies, etc.).
Isn't it that little bit nicer to have everything on a single logical volume?
I'm sure there're people that like having data on both types of drive, but for those people I think it could be improved. For example, finding a file in an open panel only to realize it was on the other volume (yes, you could use Spotlight but if you were doing it on the large hard disk, it'd likely take a while then just finding it manually). Think of it like Exposé - you don't have to remember where which window is.
Platskies is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:47 PM   #96
Cory Bauer
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Send a message via ICQ to Cory Bauer
I wonder when "later" is that the Mac moves imported files from the SSD to the hard drive. One of my biggest pet peeves is sitting down to use Aperture after importing a bunch of new photos, and soon after becoming frustrated by the unresponsiveness of my Mac only to realize the goddamn time machine backup thinks now is a good time to run.
Cory Bauer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:48 PM   #97
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
SSD's can and do have high failure rates. What if some of the boot files "migrate" to the HDD? Or are some files locked to the SSD?
If it's used often, it should stay in SSD. If these system files fail, just reinstall. I have 512Gb of SSD with me, the system files and data are all in the same "disk". By your logic, I have 4 times failure rate than the 128Gb used in Fusion Drive. Haven't have any problem yet.

Apple bought a company that specializes in identifying SSD failure early. That's probably why they are comfortable with incorporating huge amount of SSD and also innovating on SSD so far.

If other companies try to do this without equivalent technologies, then I'd be more worried.

Last edited by viacavour; Oct 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM.
viacavour is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:48 PM   #98
NewbieCanada
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by btbeme View Post
Way cool technology aside, is anyone else curious how VMWare feels about the name?
Probably the same way V8 Fusion and a thousand restaurants feel about it.
__________________
nMP 6-core, D500, 32 GB, 1 TB rMBP 13" '13 2.4 gHz, 256 GB, 8GB iPhone 6 Plus 128GB Silver iPhone 5 64GB iPad Air 128
NewbieCanada is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:48 PM   #99
D.T.
macrumors 68030
 
D.T.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vilano Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
SSD's can and do have high failure rates. What if some of the boot files "migrate" to the HDD? Or are some files locked to the SSD?
That's what I was going to reply with on your previous post - I'd assume that system critical files required for booting stay on the SSD (which I'd figure is always the default boot drive). So a failure of the non-boot drive means you can at least fire the machine, connect to a network, access core system applications, etc.

I also wonder if you can flag files for "always on SSD" regardless of their usage history[?]
D.T. is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:52 PM   #100
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post
This is actually not needed if apple went with 256GB as standard
256GB? You can find a 2TB HDD for $80 easily these days, maybe even less.
faroZ06 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 11:28 PM.

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

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