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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 31, 2012, 10:40 PM   #226
retroneo
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikir View Post
nice!

I'm thinking about a Fusion drive with SSD and a SDXC (45Mb/s) in an Air/retina Pro. With Nifty drive you can put an SD in a Pro/Air completely integrated inside!
SDXC cards are incredibly slow and they aren't designed to be used as primary storage. Using one in a write-heavy manner will see its capacity reduce quickly as blocks fail and are locked out, and speeds will progressively go down.

Even the fastest full size card's sustained transfer rates are at 45MB/s, which is still slower than a hard drive.

The fastest microSDXC devices (for use in the Nifty) which aren't even shipping yet (link below) offer only 30MB/sec (=240Mb/s) sustained transfer when new. Only the slots in the 2012 MacBooks can support these new high speeds with their PCIe-based internal SDXC reader.

Regardless, these card's speeds fall off quickly with repeated use.

For comparison, a slow hard drive can transfer data twice as fast.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/apacer-m...ews-13310.html

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3553#

Last edited by retroneo; Oct 31, 2012 at 10:55 PM.
retroneo is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 11:39 PM   #227
oYx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
I don't consider the failure issues a factor. Higher probability? Yes. But backup, backup, backup.

However, my main concern would be what if Apple somehow disables this custom setup in an update? We'd be left with file crumbs, and maybe tears and anger, wouldn't we? Unless you backup, backup, backup.
oYx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 11:42 PM   #228
aggri1
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
...

Which brings up the question of "what is the boot partition"?

The BIOS has to load the OS from somewhere, and at least enough of the OS has to be on that partition to load and start the "fusion" layer.
Hi,
I've a question about BIOS and EFI which has almost nothing to do with your comment which I quoted. I am under the impression that Intel Macs don't have/use a BIOS, instead using the EFI system. Is this not the case? (E.g. if they are different things performing different functions).

Cheers,
A.
aggri1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 11:50 PM   #229
hchung
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draeconis View Post
Does this mean that through the CoreStorage method he employs we can create a ZFS formatted boot volume?
No. OSX can't boot off ZFS unless somebody does some heavy kernel and bootloader work for us.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
And I wonder what happens if either disk temporarily disappears - does it recover or is it time for a bare metal restore?
I'm guessing it'll do the same thing as when Apple RAID groups find out a disk is missing: not mount until all drives become available. But to be honest, I don't know. Very tempted to try it though.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by applemotor View Post
I know the chances of an "FusionDrive" app making it into the store is a long shot. But a third party could make an app to handle the command-line stuff, yes?
The real big thing holding back a 3rd party Fusion Drive setup app in the Mac App Store isn't the sandboxing (which would be a problem too), but the fact that in order to configure your Mac to have the most useful Fusion Drive, you'll need to erase the two drives involved.

If you're going to erase your drives, where's your app installed?

If you're not going to be using Fusion Drive on your boot volume, then well, you kinda missed out on most of the fun already.
hchung is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 12:27 AM   #230
mfram
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, CA USA
I don't necessarily thing you *need* to re-format and re-install from scratch. The 'diskutil cs convert' command will convert a non-CoreStorage volume to CoreStoreage. This is how FileVault2 gets activated dynamically. It someone is adventurous and is going to re-install anyway, you can try to convert your Boot volume to CoreStorage if it isn't already. Then 'diskutil cs addDisk' the SSD to it. That might enable Fusion without needing to re-format and re-install.
mfram is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 01:47 AM   #231
risotto
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfram View Post
I don't necessarily thing you *need* to re-format and re-install from scratch. The 'diskutil cs convert' command will convert a non-CoreStorage volume to CoreStoreage. This is how FileVault2 gets activated dynamically. It someone is adventurous and is going to re-install anyway, you can try to convert your Boot volume to CoreStorage if it isn't already. Then 'diskutil cs addDisk' the SSD to it. That might enable Fusion without needing to re-format and re-install.
That's what I tried initially, but the addDisk command will fail when you try to add the second disk with an error (-69699). I couldn't figure out what the underlying cause was, but given that addDisk is an unsupported command, I wouldn't be surprised if it simply isn't implemented to work. The only way to add two disks successfully is by doing so when creating the LVG.

In the meantime I have actually given Boot Camp a try and was successful at getting my Windows installation back onto my machine. I created another post to show the effects of Boot Camp on the LVM: What happens to Fusion Drive when you use Boot Camp.
risotto is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 03:27 AM   #232
ratboy90
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Does anybody have an idea how I can setup my own Fusion Drive if I already have an HDD/SSD combo in my MBP using an optibay? I put my Users folder on the HDD while my SSD has apps and OS on it.
ratboy90 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 05:56 AM   #233
emir
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Istanbul
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewAMEL View Post
I'm doing this as we speak to my 13" MBP with an OWC Data Doubler.

I'll post when (and if) it works.

As a side note, I also plan on installing Windows 7 in Boot Camp.
How did it turn out for you? Working? Problems?

I will eventually try this out on my 15" MBP (mid-2010). It still has the stock ram and stock HDD (320 GB). Putting in a terabyte HD and 128 GB SSD would really make it fast, i have a 10.8 bootable usb ready but don't know if it not being 10.8.2 would cause a problem.

My main concern is about the cost though. Having this setup is kinda risky and requires you to backup constantly. With the 320 GB HDD, 320GB external (which is cheap) was all it took to back it up. With the new setup i'll need more than a terabyte of external storage for time machine. So in addition to the obtibay, ssd and hdd costs, i'll have the time machine cost.

You guys think more and more search is going to be put in to this to make it certain? Tests, comparison with actual fusion drive machines etc... If so when and how can i follow all of it? Before trying this i need to know the most i can about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratboy90 View Post
Does anybody have an idea how I can setup my own Fusion Drive if I already have an HDD/SSD combo in my MBP using an optibay? I put my Users folder on the HDD while my SSD has apps and OS on it.
How is this setup performing? Did you see a significant increase with the performance in general. I might try this sooner before getting into the fusion drive hack.
__________________
For long you live and high you fly, smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry, all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be...
emir is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 06:12 AM   #234
jowie
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London ish
Quote:
Originally Posted by emir View Post
Second thing is the risk this setup has on crashing. If the OS sees it as 1 partition, when either the SSD or the HDD fails, crashes, gets broken, the whole system gets corrupt. Isn't that more risk and with this you have to use time machine, but you will need a bigger time machine storage considering system will have 1 TB HDD, 128 GB SSD.
This is what worries me. Not only failure rates increase* (same as RAID 0 in that respect), but what if you want to swap out either component? Sometimes I take an HD out and place it in a cradle in order to repair it... If it is "symbiotically" linked to the SSD, what happens to the data?

I'd much rather it had used redundancy, instead of giving more usable space... After all, 128 GB isn't really that much of a deal when you have 1 / 3 TB of space.


*some people say "backup" which I do regularly... However I'd still rather my drive lasted longer without spending lots of money on replacements.
jowie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 06:49 AM   #235
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
BIOS and EFI do the same task

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggri1 View Post
Hi,
I've a question about BIOS and EFI which has almost nothing to do with your comment which I quoted. I am under the impression that Intel Macs don't have/use a BIOS, instead using the EFI system. Is this not the case? (E.g. if they are different things performing different functions).
They're different things performing the same basic function (initializing hardware and loading the first stage boot loader).

They're both basic input output systems - they do the basic I/O to get the system started.
__________________
6 October 2014 - the day that the debate about marriage equality ended. And equality prevailed.
AidenShaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 07:28 AM   #236
CoolSpot
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
So the headline is false. It's not Apple's Fusion Drive at all.

It should read more like "Computer Geek manages to emulate Apple's Fusion Drive in his own setup"
The only thing his setup lacks is the fancy title. If you look at the performance, its clear that he has achieved the sort of results and operation you would expect from the fusion drive.

I know you expect it to be magical, but its not that complex of a system and having it as a core part of OSX is not unexpected.
CoolSpot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 07:57 AM   #237
ErikGrim
macrumors 65816
 
ErikGrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Send a message via AIM to ErikGrim Send a message via MSN to ErikGrim
Can you fuse two drives with existing data (like collapsing partitions), or do you need to reformat from scratch once the drives are fused?
ErikGrim is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 08:00 AM   #238
emir
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Istanbul
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikGrim View Post
Can you fuse two drives with existing data (like collapsing partitions), or do you need to reformat from scratch once the drives are fused?
According to risotto's guide you need to wipe both before doing anything at all. Fuse them together, then install mac os x. Then restore from backup.
emir is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 08:25 AM   #239
obiwan22
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by petterihiisila View Post
I'm running it on Early 2008 Mac Pro. It essentially took those 2 commands as described in the article and now there's a drive called Fusion.

Missing parts were to figure out the disk numbers, use "diskutil list" for that. And for formatting the volume, you need the ID behind "Logical Volume" using command "diskutil cs list". Using Intel SSD and Seagate HDD, both internal. SSD is just hanging in there, I don't have a cradle.

So the commands for me were:

diskutil list (to get the disk numbers, in my case 4 and 0, #4 being the SSD)
diskutil cs create Fusion disk4 disk0 (to create a new volume, unformatted)
diskutil cs list (to find the volume ID)
diskutil cs createVolume 6B3D1709-EAF5-4E8C-B51B-3FED5EB17E00 jhfs+ Fusion 1100g (to format it)

Blue text are variables that you need to set for your system. Fusion is the name I gave for the drive.

Be careful with those disk numbers. Get them wrong and you will format the wrong disk. Disconnect your Time Machine before these commands in case things blow up.
I did just this on my MacPro 3,1 last night, and then let the ML install run overnight.

Everything worked without a hitch.

I won't be able to play around with it until tonight, but the process seems to work as advertised. I'm looking forward to seeing how the machine feels once I get apps and data loaded up and running.
obiwan22 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:09 AM   #240
milo
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by petterihiisila View Post
Be careful with those disk numbers. Get them wrong and you will format the wrong disk. Disconnect your Time Machine before these commands in case things blow up.
The safest thing would be to disconnect all drives other than the two being formatted. In the case of a mac pro that would include any additional internal disks.

This looks very appealing. I'm tempted to try it with my SSD (happens to be a 128) and another disk. I really just need an extra big drive to copy everything over to, if I can get one maybe I'll try it out.
milo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:38 AM   #241
CWallace
macrumors Demi-God
 
CWallace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
Much of the core OS isn't used, and of what is used quite a bit is touched once during boot and then never referenced again (e.g. a kernel driver is loaded into resident kernel memory during boot and never referenced again until the next boot, or boot-time initialization and loader programs).

One would hope that these files stay on the rotating HDD, and aren't moved into the solid state HDD - wasting space that could be used for files that are repeatedly referenced.
Apple has said that at least upon delivery, all OS and Apple-pre-installed applications are on the SSD.

So perhaps they stay on the SSD, regardless, or parts of the OS and pre-installled applications are indeed migrated to the HDD over time if unused.
CWallace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:49 AM   #242
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
Yes - 1000 GB + 128 GB = 1128 GB

It's simply the sum of the two partitions (apparently the solid state HDD partition is the entire drive, the spinning HDD partition can be a subset of spinning HDD to allow dual-booting or other things).
So is there then 28GB of unusable space on the new fusion drive? Or rather, 28GB of space that could be partitioned away into something else?

If I want the new fusion drive to take up the ENTIRETY of the SSD + the HDD partition I'm mating with it, how do I determine that "g" number (exactly), as seen below where he used 1100g?

Code:
diskutil cs createVolume 6B3D1709-EAF5-4E8C-B51B-3FED5EB17E00 jhfs+ Fusion 1100g (to format it)
For instance:
128GB SSD + 200GB disk partiton (of a 2TB physical disk) = fusion drive

Do I use 328g? 320g? What if I put in 400g?
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache

Last edited by lannister80; Nov 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM.
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 12:44 PM   #243
Cave Man
macrumors 604
 
Cave Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Neander Valley, Germany; just outside of Duesseldorf
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
If I want the new fusion drive to take up the ENTIRETY of the SSD + the HDD partition I'm mating with it, how do I determine that "g" number (exactly), as seen below where he used 1100g?
I have a 1 TB spinning drive and 240 GB SSD in my 2012 Mini. I tried 1240 and it did not work. I then tried 1220 and it did not work. I tried 1200 and it worked. Don't know why, but it is what it is.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini; i5 Quad Core ITX Hackintosh with Blu-ray playback HTPC; 1 TB eSATA Apple TV; 3.8 gHz i7 Quad Core Hackintosh, 2GB HD5870; MacBook Pro i7; MacBook Air; iPhone 4s; 1st Mac=Centris 610
Cave Man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 01:54 PM   #244
adildacoolset
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Lusaka, Zambia(If you know where it is)
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnerd93 View Post
but useless to me. Please explain to me why I'm paying 99 more for a new iMac, which lacks an optical drive, has no user upgradable ram, no firewire port, the SD card slot is now on the back an annoyance, a much slower 5400RPM hard drive, the old ones where 7200 RPM all for the sake of thinness?

An optical drive is crucial to me in a busy month as I must burn 20-30 DVD's I shoot weddings etc. This iMac flies compared to my old '09 MacBook Pro, its shocking to see how slow Aperture actually was on it.

Its a desktop why does the new iMac need to be this thin? Way too much compromise for me. I'm so glad I settled for the last gen, I'm willing to bet that my stock basic 2011 iMac will easily beat the new basic end iMac at pretty much all tasks, especially the stuff I do. A laptop 5400RPM drive has laughable performance editing RAW files in Aperture from a DSLR, no matter how fast the CPU.

That 100 quid I would have wasted has gone straight towards my rowers one piece for Uni and also 32GB RAM for it in the near future xD

relax. Calm down. In my opinion, the thin design loos sleek. The back is still thick. Optical drives are beaching old, whether you like it or not. One day, you'll find out that you can't burn any more CDs, and you'll have to find a better alternative. Thats where Apple are heading to. But I wont judge you for using CDs so if they're a necessity for you then so be it.

And you can't really blame Apple. Their products are always the first to ditch legacy technologies. Thats what sets them apart from others. We still see new laptops released with VGA ports. Apple don't do that. They're probably the last company to rely on for a CD drive.

As for the hard drive, I think that people have exaggerated the slowness of a 5400 rpm. I own one myself and it doesn't really feel sluggish. Whether or not they're user changeable, we'll have to wait and see
__________________
Last edited by adildacoolset; Tomorrow at 09:42 AM. Reason: grammar error
adildacoolset is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 02:37 PM   #245
petterihiisila
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Finland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Man View Post
I have a 1 TB spinning drive and 240 GB SSD in my 2012 Mini. I tried 1240 and it did not work. I then tried 1220 and it did not work. I tried 1200 and it worked. Don't know why, but it is what it is.
Same here. I lost about 20-40 gigs, couldn't add a simple sum of the two drives. Maybe it needs space for CoreStorage metadata, caches or other Magic Bytes.

Anyway, the hack has been running for 20 hours now, and it's working exactly as it should. My oversized VMWare machine wakes up and suspends quickly. CoreStorage has managed to move all frequently read bits to flash.

Initially I experienced HDD-like speeds, but it seems to have learned my usage patterns in about a day. If I now open something "new" from the Fusion drive, after a few seconds there's disk activity from HDD to SSD, as it moves/replaces blocks between disks.

It's clever enough to keep some SSD available for writing. If I copy and paste 100 MB files to fusion drive, SSD shows activity and HDD does not. In regular use, write speeds are SSD-level.
petterihiisila is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 02:52 PM   #246
petterihiisila
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Finland
Quote:
Originally Posted by petterihiisila View Post
Anyway, the hack has been running for 20 hours now, and it's working exactly as it should.
Ha. Right after said that, there was a kernel panic.

Panic(CPU 0): NMIPI for spinlock acquisition timeout, spinlock: 0xffffff80210be1b0, spinlock owner: 0xffffff8020fff550,

Traces point to HighPoint SCSI card kext. Last loaded kext was com.vmware.kext.vmci. System crashed when starting VMWare. There was heavy I/O on many drives.

Fusion drive tested OK with diskutil, and Time Machine behind SCSI did so too. Didn't need my Backblaze backup this time.
petterihiisila is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 02:53 PM   #247
milo
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
As for size, this command:

diskutil cs list

Shows this:
CoreStorage logical volume groups (1 found)
|
+-- Logical Volume Group F628F010-3CFF-4BC7-90CE-CD61EC7C44E1
=========================================================
Name: FusionDrive
Size: 989010051072 B (989.0 GB)
Free Space: 9922387968 B (9.9 GB)

That shows the total amount of space. This article recommended subtracting 10 gigs to leave room for a recovery partition, he formatted to 975 gigs. Recovery partition may not be needed if it's not a boot drive, but it may need a little space set aside anyway for whatever reason.

http://www.petralli.net/2012/10/anal...nal-hard-disk/

I wonder if a little bit of space is wasted, if that wasted space is on the bigger HD and not the SSD.
milo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 02:55 PM   #248
CoolSpot
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech198 View Post
*chuckles to self*

(Bet Apple's really cheesed of by this one)...

Thinking they came up with something *new* and only for the iMac, when in fact you can do in on older Macs too..... Its not rocket science where dealing with here......

Apple needs to learn. If theres a way, people will find it
I doubt it. The only real upgrade cost is the cost of the SSD and is priced that way. Most people arent going to be digging into their macs to roll their own.
CoolSpot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 02:59 PM   #249
viktorcode
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Recovery partition?

A question for you guys who already jumped the train: when you install Mountain Lion on fusion drive, does it create small recovery partition? Or you end up with a single volume in boot options?
viktorcode is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 03:13 PM   #250
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by viktorcode View Post
A question for you guys who already jumped the train: when you install Mountain Lion on fusion drive, does it create small recovery partition? Or you end up with a single volume in boot options?
You know, you could always clone your boot volume to another volume using Super Duper or Carbon Copy Cloner, boot from that, create the fusion drive out of your old boot disk + the second disk (or partition or whatever), clone the backup back to the fusion drive, and reboot. Easier than reinstalling.

----------

Oh, and I can confirm this works with HDD partitions as well, not just whole HDD disks (the SSD cannot be partitioned, however).

So "diskutil cs create bla disk1 disk7s3" works.
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 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

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does apple stock 27" with fusion drive? super tomtendo iMac 7 Jan 17, 2013 11:12 AM
Apple's New 'Fusion Drive' Not a Typical Hybrid Drive MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 363 Jan 8, 2013 07:52 AM
Fusion Drive Upgrade After Delivery. Will Apple Do This? Auramancer iMac 3 Jan 4, 2013 03:27 AM
Is the Fusion drive smart like Apple claims? mariotheotaku Buying Tips and Advice 2 Dec 29, 2012 07:29 PM
Fusion drive or apple care Gumbys69 iMac 21 Nov 29, 2012 09:26 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.

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

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