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, 11:56 PM   #126
tech4all
macrumors 68030
 
tech4all's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NorCal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneakz View Post
Don't mistake it though. You'll still lose all your data.
But nothing has changed. It's still wise to have a back up HD anyways. Hopefully people don't think this fusion thing is a 'backup' thing.
__________________
I use OS X because of Windows. And I use Android because of iOS.
tech4all is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:15 AM   #127
lilo777
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
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."
It is indeed a different solution but the pros and cons are not that clear. The fact that total capacity is combined might sound good but in desktop reality nowadays one would probably need to have at least 2TB HDD and, because of the cost, SSD size in most cases will be limited to 128GB. The difference in capacity between two solutions is about 5%. At the same time, caching system is more reliable because the file system will not be affected in the case of SSD failure (both solutions will fail when HDD fails).
lilo777 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:20 AM   #128
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
It is indeed a different solution but the pros and cons are not that clear. The fact that total capacity is combined might sound good but in desktop reality nowadays one would probably need to have at least 2TB HDD and, because of the cost, SSD size in most cases will be limited to 128GB. The difference in capacity between two solutions is about 5%. At the same time, caching system is more reliable because the file system will not be affected in the case of SSD failure (both solutions will fail when HDD fails).
Huh ? You can get a 3TB Fusion drive if 1TB is too small for you. Did you watch the presentation at all ?

A caching system may not speed up much. My Momentus TX doesn't really improve performance anywhere near what Phil's Fusion Drive chart shows. In fact, I didn't notice much difference. If the entire file I'm working on is in the SSD, then yes, it'd be fast like my MBA.

The entire 128Gb SSD won't fail at the same time. Apple bought Anobit earlier to detect and sidestep isolated SSD failures.

My MBA has 512Gb SSD and it works like a charm. I don't believe in any FUD you guys try to spread here.
viacavour is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:24 AM   #129
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Amalgamated States of Central North America
I'm assuming they worked it out so that Time Machine sees it as one drive, but wonder if 3rd party apps like Super Duper will have to be updated for it.

I personally don't like the idea. It would make me nervous to add a level of complexity like that.
swingerofbirch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:26 AM   #130
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by swingerofbirch View Post
I'm assuming they worked it out so that Time Machine sees it as one drive, but wonder if 3rd party apps like Super Duper will have to be updated for it.

I personally don't like the idea. It would make me nervous to add a level of complexity like that.
Mac OSX is already moving files around your disk so that frequently used ones are near the outer rim of the disk. Modern OS is already very complex. This should be less complex than RAID stuff.
viacavour is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:29 AM   #131
Cloudsurfer
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Netherlands
This is nice tech, but in my opinion Apple has come too late.

I can get a 512 GB flash drive for under 400$ nowadays, which is more than enough for what I need. No magical drive switching just plain old fast flash storage.
__________________
2010 Mac mini  2010 MBP 13" iPhone5 16GB  iPad2 64GB  AppleTV 3
Cloudsurfer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:30 AM   #132
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudsurfer View Post
This is nice tech, but in my opinion Apple has come too late.

I can get a 512 GB flash drive for under 400$ nowadays, which is more than enough for what I need. No magical drive switching just plain old fast flash storage.
I already have 512Gb SSD and I need more ! ^_^ 3TB sounds good.
viacavour is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:32 AM   #133
george-brooks
macrumors 6502a
 
george-brooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New York, NY
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.
Definitely true for pros and heavy users, but this seems like the perfect solution for the average computer illiterate user.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
I already have 512Gb SSD and I need more ! ^_^ 3TB sounds good.
Ya thats the problem, I need a TB and the OWC Mercury Electra is the only one I've found, and its over 1k and only 3G. Anyone know of a 6G SSD >512GB?
__________________
Mac Pro 3,1: 8 Core 2.8 GHz|16GB|Radeon 5870|2TB+120GB SSD
MacBook Pro 8,2: 2.5 GHz i7|16GB|750GB+240GB SSD
iPhone 5, iPad 4, 11" Macbook Air, 12" Powerbook G4
george-brooks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:38 AM   #134
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
They have commoditized tiered storage it seems.

High end SANs and ZFS have been doing this for years.
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:42 AM   #135
Axemantitan
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Don't SSDs have a limited number of read/write cycles? I wonder how long this system will function before it needs to be replaced?
__________________
√-1 2^3 Σ π

Favorite website: http://www.mammals.org/
Axemantitan is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:44 AM   #136
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by throAU View Post
They have commoditized tiered storage it seems.

High end SANs and ZFS have been doing this for years.
Which ZFS feature are you referring to ?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axemantitan View Post
Don't SSDs have a limited number of read/write cycles? I wonder how long this system will function before it needs to be replaced?
Well, they have been selling SSD-based MBA for years. The max. number of SSD writes should last equally or longer than mechanical drives for consumer apps now.
viacavour is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:51 AM   #137
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Amalgamated States of Central North America
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
Mac OSX is already moving files around your disk so that frequently used ones are near the outer rim of the disk. Modern OS is already very complex. This should be less complex than RAID stuff.
Did not know that, very interesting. Although, I use Safari every day and it still takes way too many bounces on that first launch (I still have the stock 5400 RPM HDD, though)!
swingerofbirch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:53 AM   #138
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by swingerofbirch View Post
Did not know that, very interesting. Although, I use Safari every day and it still takes way too many bounces on that first launch (I still have the stock 5400 RPM HDD, though)!
I can't stand 5400rpm HDD. I changed the ones in my PS3 too. Everything has to be 7200rpm at least or SSD for me now.
viacavour is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 12:58 AM   #139
darcyjames
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
I already have 512Gb SSD and I need more ! ^_^ 3TB sounds good.
Yes, 2nd that, my iTunes library alone is 1TB, and iPhoto is 300GB...I love the compromise as I wait for large flash to come down in price.
__________________
15"rMBP 2.6i7/16/512, 11"MBA i7/4/128, 21.5" iMac i7/8/500, 2TB Tcap, w/2APexpress, iPad 3rd/64, iPhone5/Bk/32, atv1,2,3, iPodVideo5.1/30 
darcyjames is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:13 AM   #140
theturn
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2012
I wonder if you can turn it off much like you can for time machine, I am also interested to know if there will be a bto option for 768gb SSD plus 3tb HD. I can manage my own workflow and don't want to risk anything with files spanned across two logical volumes when my workflow doesn't even need it...

from the looks of it mac mini doesn't allow for a btw option with full ssd and HD..
theturn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:14 AM   #141
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
Which ZFS feature are you referring to
Splitting your ZIL and L2ARC off onto an SSD.


Edit:
yes its technically caching. More so the apple has been done with bigger SAN devices already with storage tiering.
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:22 AM   #142
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by throAU View Post
Splitting your ZIL and L2ARC off onto an SSD.


Edit:
yes its technically caching. More so the apple has been done with bigger SAN devices already with storage tiering.
Yeah Fusion Drive is not caching. Not the same thing.

The larger enterprise info lifecycle management, and high end SAN platforms may have similar concepts, but this one works within one system, and is managed in real-time by Mac OSX automatically. Which SAN devices are you thinking of ?
viacavour is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:26 AM   #143
k995
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
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.
Funny usualy its "specs dont matter its the end result for users thats important" unless its something people think apple "invented" "brought first to market" then the smallest details matter.


Again wether the SDD is used solely as cache or as a disk with just frequently used files it was already done before .


Btw, I do hope people relise this might not be the optimum way for an SSD to be used, they still have only (consumer grade ssd's) 5-10 000 write cycles, using it only for heavy used files will speed up the process cell wear out.
k995 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:29 AM   #144
AppleScruff1
macrumors 603
 
AppleScruff1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
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.
But at least it's thin and looks cool.
AppleScruff1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:36 AM   #145
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by k995 View Post
Funny usualy its "specs dont matter its the end result for users thats important" unless its something people think apple "invented" "brought first to market" then the smallest details matter.


Again wether the SDD is used solely as cache or as a disk with just frequently used files it was already done before .


Btw, I do hope people relise this might not be the optimum way for an SSD to be used, they still have only (consumer grade ssd's) 5-10 000 write cycles, using it only for heavy used files will speed up the process cell wear out.
It is moot to discuss whether "specs matters or not matters". Fusion Drive allows the users to have SSD-like speed with mechanical HDD-like storage size. The way it works is different from regular hybrid drives. I have tried those approaches and I know they don't work that well. But if it's integrated into the OS, then I think it will be more effective. As someone mentioned, it's effective when we do it manually. This system does it automatically for us. There will be some overhead, but the gain should be noticeable.

Mechanical HDD wears out too. For consumer apps, the SSD write cycles should be good enough (as good as, or better than mechanical HDD wears). Unless you're running a commercial database server that writes data continuously (i.e., non-stop), it won't matter. Those servers will run on high speed parallel storage system anyway.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleScruff1 View Post
But at least it's thin and looks cool.
Yes ! And also the reliability point may be misguided. Without Fusion Drive, you're limited to SSD _or_ HDD, and you have to move the files yourself. The reliability for managing both SSD and HDD yourself is the same as Fusion Drive, but in Fusion Drive, Mac OSX automate the process for you.

Last edited by viacavour; Oct 24, 2012 at 01:45 AM.
viacavour is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:45 AM   #146
Wild-Bill
macrumors 68020
 
Wild-Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ?
Meh....

I personally think it's all marketing hocus pocus to distract people from the sad fact that the Mac lineup is shifting to where one can no longer upgrade memory or anything else, and will be shackled to Apple's extortionist upgrade pricing. Make no mistake: that memory is soldered on the board for profit. Pretty soon the SSD's will be soldered on as well.

If Apple actually does release a new Mac Pro in "late 2013" I would not be surprised at all if they came with the memory soldered on the board.
(But the Mac Pro is about upgrade-ability and expandability which Apple hates, which is why it finds itself on death row).
__________________
Wild-Bill is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:53 AM   #147
k995
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
Huh ? You can get a 3TB Fusion drive if 1TB is too small for you. Did you watch the presentation at all ?

A caching system may not speed up much. My Momentus TX doesn't really improve performance anywhere near what Phil's Fusion Drive chart shows. In fact, I didn't notice much difference. If the entire file I'm working on is in the SSD, then yes, it'd be fast like my MBA.

The entire 128Gb SSD won't fail at the same time. Apple bought Anobit earlier to detect and sidestep isolated SSD failures.

My MBA has 512Gb SSD and it works like a charm. I don't believe in any FUD you guys try to spread here.
You are not understanding what he is saying , he has 2 points:

1 : Most people dont need 1 TB of disk space capable of being put on an ssd for fast recovery .

2 : If the DRIVE fails you loose both the SSD and HDD, he isnt talking about a sector or cell he is talking about the drive itself. (of course this goes for any drive, backup is the message)
k995 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:56 AM   #148
viacavour
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild-Bill View Post
Meh....

I personally think it's all marketing hocus pocus to distract people from the sad fact that the Mac lineup is shifting to where one can no longer upgrade memory or anything else, and will be shackled to Apple's extortionist upgrade pricing. Make no mistake: that memory is soldered on the board for profit. Pretty soon the SSD's will be soldered on as well.

If Apple actually does release a new Mac Pro in "late 2013" I would not be surprised at all if they came with the memory soldered on the board.
(But the Mac Pro is about upgrade-ability and expandability which Apple hates, which is why it finds itself on death row).
Well, I can still upgrade my 2012 MBA. MacBook Pro Retina can take memory upgrade too.

You should be able to get other types of HDD too. You don't have to use Fusion Drive if you don't want to.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by k995 View Post
You are not understanding what he is saying , he has 2 points:

1 : Most people dont need 1 TB of disk space capable of being put on an ssd for fast recovery .

2 : If the DRIVE fails you loose both the SSD and HDD, he isnt talking about a sector or cell he is talking about the drive itself. (of course this goes for any drive, backup is the message)
I understood him correctly. Both points are moot. There are 1TB and 3TB config. Whether most people need 1TB or 3TB, the market will decide.

If the drive fails, it would be no different from losing a hybrid drive. If you only want to compare with a pure SSD or pure HDD, then get a pure SDD or HDD. If you want to get a regular hybrid drive, then it may be better to get Fusion Drive. The choice is yours.

EDIT: In fact, NBC News says that the SSD part and the HDD part can be updated or replaced separately.

Last edited by viacavour; Oct 24, 2012 at 02:07 AM.
viacavour is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 02:10 AM   #149
Wild-Bill
macrumors 68020
 
Wild-Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
Well, I can still upgrade my 2012 MBA. MacBook Pro Retina can take memory upgrade too.
.
Huh?

How exactly can you upgrade the memory in your 2012 MBA. I would love to know.
__________________
Wild-Bill is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 02:11 AM   #150
k995
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by viacavour View Post
It is moot to discuss whether "specs matters or not matters". Fusion Drive allows the users to have SSD-like speed with mechanical HDD-like storage size.
BS, apple marketing FUD (still amazed how many people fall for that)

You have a disk with 128GB of SSD and x of HDD

Take for example an iphoto library of 250 GB if you acces its fully all the time do you think the entire 250GB will be on SSD speeds? (if the hybrid disk is capable of giving normal sdd speeds with the added layer)

No it wont, part of it wil part of it wont.

The only thing this does is decide wich gets accesed a lot for you, but you till only have 128GB of SSD .


Quote:
The way it works is different from regular hybrid drives. I have tried those approaches and I know they don't work that well. But if it's integrated into the OS, then I think it will be more effective. As someone mentioned, it's effective when we do it manually. This system does it automatically for us. There will be some overhead, but the gain should be noticeable.
So is the gain on an caching with SSD or just an ssd , its nice its integrated into the OS and its good to see apple innovating again in desktop market besides making things thinner .


Quote:
Mechanical HDD wears out too. For consumer apps, the SSD write cycles should be good enough (as good as, or better than mechanical HDD wears). Unless you're running a commercial database server that writes data continuously (i.e., non-stop), it won't matter. Those servers will run on high speed parallel storage system anyway.
Write cycles SSD is a lot worse then HDD overal reliability is about the same .


Quote:
Yes ! And also the reliability point may be misguided. Without Fusion Drive, you're limited to SSD _or_ HDD, and you have to move the files yourself. The reliability for managing both SSD and HDD yourself is the same as Fusion Drive, but in Fusion Drive, Mac OSX automate the process for you.
And that is the biggest difference between the 2 , not reliability or suddenly vastly increased fast storage.
k995 is offline   0 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 AM.

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

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