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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:54 PM   #101
D.T.
macrumors 68030
 
D.T.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vilano Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
256GB? You can find a 2TB HDD for $80 easily these days, maybe even less.
I found a couple under my mattress, no idea how they even got there...
D.T. is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:54 PM   #102
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
This looks really cool, but it makes my Mac Pro look old
faroZ06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:54 PM   #103
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
256GB? You can find a 2TB HDD for $80 easily these days, maybe even less.
He meant 256Gb SSD.
viacavour is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:55 PM   #104
brdeveloper
macrumors 68000
 
brdeveloper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brasil
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieCanada View Post
Probably the same way V8 Fusion and a thousand restaurants feel about it.
VMWare Fusion^2 - now with Apple's Fusion support.
__________________
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   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:56 PM   #105
Lancer
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
It's amazing how many people think they can run Apple better than they do, aren't the the worlds most valued company?

I'll have to wait for more details before placing my iMac order and making them a few dollars richer.
Lancer is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:56 PM   #106
heyjp
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
I think we'll see Fusion Drive technology in MacBook Pros next year with the optical drives removed. A little surprised that didn't happen in the spring MBP w/Retina, but probably next year's upgrade. It's a sweet design.

Jim
heyjp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:56 PM   #107
Candlelight
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New Zealand
So how do these Fusion drives compare to Momentus XT drives which have been around for years? Fundamentally they sound similar but I could be wrong.
Candlelight is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:57 PM   #108
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyjp View Post
I think we'll see Fusion Drive technology in MacBook Pros next year with the optical drives removed. A little surprised that didn't happen in the spring MBP w/Retina, but probably next year's upgrade. It's a sweet design.

Jim
Come on man. It is available to the entry models. It should be made available to all models, including MBA. Not just the Pros.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candlelight View Post
So how do these Fusion drives compare to Momentus XT drives which have been around for years? Fundamentally they sound similar but I could be wrong.
See 2-3 pages back.
viacavour is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 10:57 PM   #109
Cougarcat
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieCanada View Post
Probably the same way V8 Fusion and a thousand restaurants feel about it.
I doubt VMware minds, but those examples are not in the computer industry, so of course they aren't going to care.
Cougarcat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:01 PM   #110
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
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.
The article specifically draws a distinction between Fusion and Intel's solution.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
He meant 256Gb SSD.
He meant 256GB SSD, and what I meant is that 256GB SSDs cost way more money per GB than HDDs. I like the compromise that Fusion as well as the caching solutions bring. Using an SSD alone is too expensive and doesn't provide enough storage.
faroZ06 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:02 PM   #111
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
He meant 256GB SSD, and what I meant is that 256GB SSDs cost way more money per GB than HDDs. I like the compromise that Fusion as well as the caching solutions bring. Using an SSD alone is too expensive and doesn't provide enough storage.
Indeed !
viacavour is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:04 PM   #112
nuckinfutz
macrumors 603
 
nuckinfutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Middle Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candlelight View Post
So how do these Fusion drives compare to Momentus XT drives which have been around for years? Fundamentally they sound similar but I could be wrong.
Momentus XT only has 8GB of SLC NAND for caching. The Apple solution has a lot more space for SSD storage which means the OS and apps can all happily reside it it. Something a caching system like the Momentus XT cannot do.
nuckinfutz is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:06 PM   #113
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
...So could you put an SSD and an HDD in a Mac Pro then set them up as a Fusion drive? Or is this controlled by some kind of hard drive logic not in Mac OS that's built into some SSD/HDD combo drive? If so, could I buy one of these Fusion drives and stick one in my Mac Pro and have the file management be done by the drive itself, leaving the CPU and OS out of it?

I wish they had more details on this stuff, but of course people care more about the specs of their phones than the specs of their iMacs, as shown by the iPhone tear-down reports
faroZ06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:07 PM   #114
RoverTX
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
As other have said this is basically a RAID 0 with some smart save features. You loose all the reliability of an SSD for speed gains that aren't really going to help your productivity in any meaningful way, unless your having to reboot your OS or Photoshop every 10 minutes...
RoverTX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:11 PM   #115
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
...So could you put an SSD and an HDD in a Mac Pro then set them up as a Fusion drive? Or is this controlled by some kind of hard drive logic not in Mac OS that's built into some SSD/HDD combo drive? If so, could I buy one of these Fusion drives and stick one in my Mac Pro and have the file management be done by the drive itself, leaving the CPU and OS out of it?

I wish they had more details on this stuff, but of course people care more about the specs of their phones than the specs of their iMacs
My guess is both. The file system measures, masterminds and commands the file routing. The driver and hardware does the actual work (and raw measurements) in a way to minimize impact to regular operations.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoverTX View Post
As other have said this is basically a RAID 0 with some smart save features. You loose all the reliability of an SSD for speed gains that aren't really going to help your productivity in any meaningful way, unless your having to reboot your OS or Photoshop every 10 minutes...
Nah... RAID is not needed here. The file is not split nor duplicated between the 2 disks.


EDIT: I don't know why people are so eager to apply their PC and RAID bad experiences here. This is a Mac. They are free to do things differently.

Just like how they take OS security more seriously early in the game.
viacavour is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:13 PM   #116
nuckinfutz
macrumors 603
 
nuckinfutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Middle Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoverTX View Post
As other have said this is basically a RAID 0 with some smart save features. You loose all the reliability of an SSD for speed gains that aren't really going to help your productivity in any meaningful way, unless your having to reboot your OS or Photoshop every 10 minutes...
RAID 0 is interleaving data across multiple drive to increase read/write speeds. That's not what happens here. Data can move from HDD to SSD or vice versa. It's not being striped and thusfar no verbiage about data redundancy has been mentioned by Apple.
nuckinfutz is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:19 PM   #117
D.T.
macrumors 68030
 
D.T.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vilano Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckinfutz View Post
RAID 0 is interleaving data across multiple drive to increase read/write speeds. That's not what happens here. Data can move from HDD to SSD or vice versa. It's not being striped and thusfar no verbiage about data redundancy has been mentioned by Apple.
Yeah, this is pretty much like having a separate SSD and HDD, where you manually move apps/files/etc., to the SSD you think need faster access and use your HDD for storing less accessed apps and files.

It's just one logical volume and the location of the files is determined by a system process that monitors how often a files it used, and maybe the nature of the use/file type (not absolutely sure on the logic since details are still pretty sketchy).
D.T. is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:23 PM   #118
nuckinfutz
macrumors 603
 
nuckinfutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Middle Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.T. View Post
Yeah, this is pretty much like having a separate SSD and HDD, where you manually move apps/files/etc., to the SSD you think need faster access and use your HDD for storing less accessed apps and files.

It's just one logical volume and the location of the files is determined by a system process that monitors how often a files it used, and maybe the nature of the use/file type (not absolutely sure on the logic since details are still pretty sketchy).
Exactly. I don't know why people are making it more complex that it is. At foundation of all storage tiering is moving data to where it operates best. Of course the Devil is details
nuckinfutz is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:29 PM   #119
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckinfutz View Post
Exactly. I don't know why people are making it more complex that it is. At foundation of all storage tiering is moving data to where it operates best. Of course the Devil is details
My guess is Apple's vertical integration simplifies the design and implementation even more. Those "old" RAID, and other redundancy solutions are all devised for all and any OSes. So they had to design it at very low level, and try to solve too many problems at the same time, to make more $$$.

They can also sell high margin professional services if the deployment is complex.

Trying to apply those enterprise technologies to consumer market may not always work.

Apple's business model is completely different. They cherish simplicity.
viacavour is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:35 PM   #120
RMo
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Iowa, USA
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.
...and if your data lives only on your external "backup" drive, you'll need to back up the external drive, too.

And while we're on this topic, like others, I also wonder what happens if one of the drives (most likely the HD, I suppose) were to fail and how backups and restores will work.
RMo is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:36 PM   #121
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMo View Post
...and if your data lives only on your external "backup" drive, you'll need to back up the external drive, too.

And while we're on this topic, like others, I also wonder what happens if one of the drives (most likely the HD, I suppose) were to fail and how backups and restores will work.
Someone email Phil. I'm too busy and couldn't be bothered. 8^P

I have a feeling he'll interest you to buy a Time Capsule.
viacavour is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:40 PM   #122
k995
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
The article specifically draws a distinction between Fusion and Intel's solution.

There is barely any difference between wats already out in the market, dont let some apple spin fool you .

http://www.ocztechnology.com/revohybrid-faq

this even does it on block level .

----------


Quote:
He meant 256GB SSD, and what I meant is that 256GB SSDs cost way more money per GB than HDDs. I like the compromise that Fusion as well as the caching solutions bring. Using an SSD alone is too expensive and doesn't provide enough storage.
512GB costs 350 thats what ? 15% of the imac cost? Thats the difference between a 2.7GHZ i5 and 2.9GHZ i5 and thiswill make the imac a lot faster then that cpu bump.
k995 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:44 PM   #123
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by k995 View Post
There is barely any difference between wats already out in the market, dont let some apple spin fool you .

http://www.ocztechnology.com/revohybrid-faq

this even does it on block level .

----------

[/COLOR]


512GB costs 350 thats what ? 15% of the imac cost? Thats the difference between a 2.7GHZ i5 and 2.9GHZ i5 and thiswill make the imac a lot faster then that cpu bump.
Don't let you fool yourself.

It's different because Fusion Drive is not a caching system. That's probably why they chose the name "Fused". The data resides on both disks and do not duplicate. It's like the disks are combined together. Your storage size should be 1.128 TB here theoretically.

The OCZ tech is "just" another hybrid drive caching system.

Last edited by viacavour; Oct 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM.
viacavour is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:44 PM   #124
G51989
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post
This is actually not needed if apple went with 256GB as standard
Yeah....because 256gb is SUCH a huge amount of storage

Maybe the better part of a Decade 256gb was enough. But not anymore.

There isn't all that much different about this drive compared to a typical hybrid drive, some differences.

Very cool.
G51989 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2012, 11:48 PM   #125
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
Yeah....because 256gb is SUCH a huge amount of storage

Maybe the better part of a Decade 256gb was enough. But not anymore.

There isn't all that much different about this drive compared to a typical hybrid drive, some differences.

Very cool.
A world of difference even though the goals may overlap.

Fusion Drive's total capacity is 1.128TB. A regular hybrid drive caching system is 1TB with the same disk.

"To be clear, this is not a caching concept, at least not in the current use of the word. Cache would imply that the data on the SSD is duplicated, and it's not. If you have a 1TB mechanical drive paired with the 128GB SSD, you have a 1.12 TB storage platform. This truly is the fusion of all the space on two separate disks."
viacavour is offline   3 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 06:15 AM.

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

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