Is it likely that fusion drives will have larger SSDs upon next update?

[Whackintosh]

128gb doesn't seem like it would really be enough for my OS and apps after not very much time. I'm going to be buying a new iMac soon, but I'd happily wait six months or so for a refresh if a larger SSD fusion drive is likely to be a part of the next update (would also give me the benefit of not buying a 1st gen machine).

[BeeJee]

Originally Posted by Whackintosh

128gb doesn't seem like it would really be enough for my OS and apps after not very much time. I'm going to be buying a new iMac soon, but I'd happily wait six months or so for a refresh if a larger SSD fusion drive is likely to be a part of the next update (would also give me the benefit of not buying a 1st gen machine).

Doubt it. The Fusion drives were designed to have some speed from an SSD while having a large capacity of a HDD, all while being "reasonably priced". A larger SSD would just add to the cost and make things confusing.

[Whackintosh]

Interesting. The main reason I even ask is because my OSX Mail app is enormous (it's POP and I keep all my emails) and will only be growing larger and larger each year. I'd hate for Mail to eventually end up on the 5400 drive because of sheer size.

[marzer]

Originally Posted by Whackintosh

128gb doesn't seem like it would really be enough for my OS and apps after not very much time. I'm going to be buying a new iMac soon, but I'd happily wait six months or so for a refresh if a larger SSD fusion drive is likely to be a part of the next update (would also give me the benefit of not buying a 1st gen machine).

Whats the size of your application folder now? Not that i'm on the high side, but with several large games, ms office, iworks, ilife, several productivity apps my application folder is barely 35GB. A standard OS X load is about 12GB. I'd long run out the life expectancy of the current iMac before my application/os load becomes too large for a 128GB SSD.

[WhiteIphone5]

Originally Posted by Whackintosh

Interesting. The main reason I even ask is because my OSX Mail app is enormous (it's POP and I keep all my emails) and will only be growing larger and larger each year. I'd hate for Mail to eventually end up on the 5400 drive because of sheer size.

7200 if 27" iMac

[BeeJee]

Originally Posted by WhiteIphone5

7200 if 27" iMac

Assuming OP is getting 21 incher again since that's what's in the sig. Good point though. Still HDD are becoming kinda lame. Especially a 5400, sheesh.

[Whackintosh]

Originally Posted by WhiteIphone5

7200 if 27" iMac

True. I'm looking at the 21.5 though (the 27 is just too large a beast for my desk space).

My Applications folder is currently 26.83gb, but that wouldn't include, for example, all the email files and large media attachments from my Mail folders, would it? That doesn't seem possible.

[Nermal]

Originally Posted by Whackintosh

Interesting. The main reason I even ask is because my OSX Mail app is enormous (it's POP and I keep all my emails) and will only be growing larger and larger each year. I'd hate for Mail to eventually end up on the 5400 drive because of sheer size.

I believe that Fusion is managed at the block level rather than the file level. Your frequently-used messages would remain on the SSD and only infrequently-used ones would go onto the HDD.

Having said that, I think Mail has a separate file for each message anyway (although I'm not at my Mac to check).

[AlanShutko]

Fusion is managed at the file level, and you are right that mail uses a single file per message. So recent mail and the database could be on the ssd while old mail which is infrequently referenced could be on the mechanical drive.

[mushroomtip]

It's possible but I think more SSD only options will be more likely.

[marzer]

Originally Posted by Whackintosh

True. I'm looking at the 21.5 though (the 27 is just too large a beast for my desk space).

My Applications folder is currently 26.83gb, but that wouldn't include, for example, all the email files and large media attachments from my Mail folders, would it? That doesn't seem possible.

Your not talking about application size then, your talking about your user data. Your messages are stored as individual files, in the library folder, so you wouldn't really benefit from having all your mail on an ssd. Like a database it caches only a relatively small subset of your messages into higher tiered memory anyway.

The significant benefit of ssd is seen in executing the os, programs (the actual application not the associated user data) and opening singular data files that are GBs in size like video or very hi-res photos.

Btw, with a fusion drive, 4GB of the SSD is used for caching drive operations. So even a 5400rpm drive will seem faster than even a 7200rpm drive under typical data activity.

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by AlanShutko

Fusion is managed at the file level...

No.

[flynz4]

Originally Posted by AlanShutko

Fusion is managed at the file level, and you are right that mail uses a single file per message. So recent mail and the database could be on the ssd while old mail which is infrequently referenced could be on the mechanical drive.

I do not believe this is correct. Fusion is managed at the block level from everything that I have read.

/Jim

[phoenixsan]

not too likely. The 256 SSDs modules need to go down in big fashion for Apple to consider has a viable stock option. But Apple in some moment can get a big OEM discount and pass it out to consumers. But this last escenario is a BIG if, IMHO

[Nuke61]

Originally Posted by flynz4

I do not believe this is correct. Fusion is managed at the block level from everything that I have read.
/Jim

That's exactly what Ars says about it:

Much of Apple’s marketing on Fusion Drive talks about moving data at the file and application level, but in reality data can be moved between the SSD and HDD portions in 128KB blocks.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6679/a...fusion-drive/4

[AlanShutko]

Oops, I missed the updates. The original guesses were file level but that's been debunked. Thanks for the links.

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by mushroomtip

It's possible but I think more SSD only options will be more likely.

Agreed. It looks like Apple is designing Fusion to be a stop-gap on the way the all-out SSD awesomeness, and that 128GB is where it ends. Can't say for sure, of course, but it sure looks that way.

[Hexley]

Originally Posted by Whackintosh

128gb doesn't seem like it would really be enough for my OS and apps after not very much time. I'm going to be buying a new iMac soon, but I'd happily wait six months or so for a refresh if a larger SSD fusion drive is likely to be a part of the next update (would also give me the benefit of not buying a 1st gen machine).

When I first found out that the SSD used for the Fusion Drive of the iMac was available in larger capacities at OWC I was tempted to just order the base SATA drive and order the 480GB Aura Pro.

From what I have read it doesnt work with the 2012 iMac.

I'm sure once component prices are within materials budget a larger/better/faster SSD will be used in the future.

[Lancer]

Given time yes the SSD part will grow but it's tricky to knowing when. The earliest we might get an update to the new iMac might be after the next Intel CPUs are release which happens around mid year. So there is a outside chance for maybe 256Gb SS then. Personally I don't see Apple updating the iMac until later in the year.

And I'm not sure if it's needed for most people unless they have loads of programs/game and your emails have loads of attachments. I'm betting by the time most people run out of SSD space it will be time for their next iMac.

[flynz4]

I'll be happy when the full SSD option gets larger. My 768GB SSD machine is scheduled for delivery this week. I'll probably keep this one for 2-3 years before water-falling it to my wife... and by then I would expect 2TB SSDs.

/Jim