True, but the result is the same regarding chance of error (it basically doubles). If one of the two drives fail all data is lost (or in other words, you'll have to hire a specialist to get it back)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fusion Drive Now Available as Option for Low End 21.5" iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
True, but the result is the same regarding chance of error (it basically doubles). If one of the two drives fail all data is lost (or in other words, you'll have to hire a specialist to get it back)
7200 RPM drives require bigger batteries and increase the emission of CO₂. If you want more noise & heat, buy 7200 RPM drives! And btw, the RPM are not the problem in the Fusion Drive configuration, so you discuss a non-existing problem.
The drive is either quiet OR audible, NOT both.
You have no mathematically correct proof.
No, not at all.
Apple gives you Time Machine, a free backup solution, since October 2007, that means 5 full years of backups, which is a lot in the IT-industry.
Apple gives you Disk Utility since March 2001. This tool can create (compressed or non-compressed) disk images of entire disks or virtual volumes (your choice). Just boot from a CD/DVD/2nd partition or HDD/SSD, select the disk/volume in DU, create a new disk image and save the disk image on the external backup disk (HFS+ formatted, if possible).
It is not Apples fault, if you have no backups.
----------
iAgree 100 %.
I hate to break it to you, but all your files are on 2 separate disks. The so called "fusion" drive is just 2 separate drives. One SSD and one HD joined by your system software into one "Logical Drive". The drive you think is one HD is really 2 regular separate drives.
I understand this. But it appears as one volume.
What I was trying to point out was the seamlessness.
I am not an expert when it comes to disk management so I think it would be beyond me to configure a system that keeps frequently used files on the SSD and infrequently used ones on the HD.
No. It's the hard goods way. Early adopters always pay highest price for being first. No one was forced to buy any iMac the moment they went on sale, and as I already noted, the earliest of adopters can return there machine tomorrow and buy one with Fusion if they desire b/c of Apple's extended holiday return period.
Anyway you look at it the iMac 21.5 inch is very close to a laptop in a box with the construction philosophy of an iPad. It's too bad that the mindless obsession to useless thinness keeps infecting Apple products with the loss of both features, repair-ability and user upgrade-ability.
Sitting here with three Macs on my desk and I do not like Apple's current trends.
Sitting here with three Macs on my desk and I do not like Apple's current trends.
Haven't read all the posts, but the fusion drive is a nice thing to buy if you want fast performance most of the time, and have lots of storage space. However, you'll still get those freezes while the hard drive spins up right? To finally be rid of that with an all-SSD setup is a big deal to me. I haven't owned an iMac before, but I imagine you will easily hear the HD when it's writing/loading, and it will also contribute to generally higher temperatures inside the iMac (which will at least in theory give you noticable fan noise more often). The fusion drive is a great comprimise between SSD and HD, but the streamlined performance of an all-SSD computer is such an improvement to me. That's why I went for the 768gb SSD, even though the price was pretty insane. Why couldn't Apple just give us an 512gb SSD option too for both iMac models? That would have been a much better deal IMO.
I guess they need to have an extra card up their sleeve, when they release the Haswell iMacs. "Hey, now you can also buy an iMac with an inexpensive, superior all-SSD solution if you want!" hmm...
I guess they need to have an extra card up their sleeve, when they release the Haswell iMacs. "Hey, now you can also buy an iMac with an inexpensive, superior all-SSD solution if you want!" hmm...
Actually, the 768GB SSD, while pricey (as are all single drive SSDs above 512GB in capacity) is a useful size. You can devote 512GB for OS X and also have 256GB for Windows, if you run both ... all at SSD speeds!
In my workplace I've used models from 2006 to 2011. From the 21.5" to the 27" iMacs. There has been no noise from either the fan or the HD on any of the machines I have worked on.
----------
Do you propose the opposite? I.E: Making iMacs larger and larger over time?
I used to work at Apple years ago, before the iPhone/iOS craze. Around that time iMac's [generally] used mobile parts, while my last year they introduced iMac's with desktop spec's/hardware. It was difficult enough repairing an iMac, if you've ever opened one you'd understand. There is no need for "thinner" desktops, especially as the "thin" is a complete deception due to the back bowing out for needed space. Reverting to mobile hardware for a $1500+ desktop system just to save a small amount of space is ridiculous. This negates the ability for quicker and easier repairs, requires more bench time, while impairing overall functionality with unnecessary hardware. I always admired Apple for a good balance of form and function, however this is an example in which form impairs function. I thought I'd never have to admit that in my years as a Mac user. It does seem Apple is obsessed with mobile devices and couldn't care less about true desktop systems.
I suggest that you check EMC's product line, or the storage tiering available in Veritas Storage Foundation from Symantec.
When you say "nobody", or "no other company", you make it easy to find the counter-example that destroys your argument.
Just an observation but I checked out the 21.5" in store yesterday and noted the formatted HDD size for the 1Tb was about 999Gb in the 'About this Mac' window. But on my older G5 Tower with 1Tb is about 931Gb, meaning the new HDDs must be using a different method to calculate the actual formatted size. The upside is you gain almost 70Gb, doesn't sound like much with 1Tb but it adds up.
Have they changed the actual HDD size so when formatted it is actually the size advertised?
And no the one I looked at did NOT have 128 Gb SSD making up the difference.
Have they changed the actual HDD size so when formatted it is actually the size advertised?
And no the one I looked at did NOT have 128 Gb SSD making up the difference.
M
Mr.damien
Guest
Ok, so you say "again" but you still continue to be an early adopter ?
I seems to enjoy it then.
It's neither of those - but it has the terrible reliability characteristics of RAID-0.
Other systems call "Fusion" by the term "volume concatenation". You have a logical volume (which appears to be a single disk drive to the unprivileged user) composed of multiple partitions on one or more physical drives. (Windows has been doing this since the last century, and all server class operating systems have similar features.)
"Fusion" takes a concatenated volume concept a step further, and lets the OS specify on which segment of the concatenated volume that certain files should be located. The OS knows which segments are faster, and can do some optimizations.
It's bloody stupid, however, to blindly put all OS files on the SSD.
It's good marketing, since you can have a keynote bakeoff and show that it "boots 57% faster".
However, I'd bet that few people reboot weekly, a fair number reboot monthly, and the majority every few months.
Most of the OS files are either not used (libraries for features or hardware that you don't use or have), or are touched once during boot and never again (initialization code, drivers that are moved into memory,...).
Why waste the SSD space with locking down those seldom-used files - instead of doing some more intelligent frequency of use placements?
I cannot really dispute that, as I have never actually opened up a Mac myself to attempt a physical repair. But I could see why it would make things difficult. For the average consumer, having a sleek desktop, slimmer with the same function would be awesome. But for the Mac enthusiast that would like to do his own repairs or would like to have the ability to work on his own computer after the warranty expires... I can see how the current trend would hurt that. I also agree on the new Macs... they APPEAR thinner in the photos, but in actuality they have that horrendous bubble in the back of them. I would prefer a thinner Mac, but completely thinner. No bubbles or protrusions from the rear of it.
If you are discussing chance of error rised by fusing two drives... (I havent read whole discussion, too long), it does not double, it rises but you cant say it doubles. Take it - probability of failure of each of the disk is independent event (this is fact according to theory of probability), lets say Prob. for HDD has 20 perent, Prob. for SSD has 10 percent, than the probability of failure of fused disk is (0.2*0.9 + 0.8*0.1 + 0.2*0.1)*100=28 percent - so yes, fused drive has bigger probability to fail than single HDD or SSD.
Not making something smaller, is not the same thing as making it larger. The 2011 imac did not need to be smaller. Yet.
Do you propose making iMacs smaller and smaller over time without limit?
Its the OS, not the hard drives doing the calculation. And yes, apple changed it so a 500gb drive shows ~500gb or a 1tb drive shows ~1000gb. This was done in lion i believe.
Please try to keep up. I was responding to a contention that Apple could not use 7200 RPM drives in a 2.5 inch size because such did not exist. I said nothing about minimizing one's carbon footprint - please calm down.
if 1 in a 100 harddrives break within 5 years,
2 harddrives will have a chance of 2 in 200 they'll fail in 5 years.
edit: may not be this simple
the two will be as one, therefore if one fails- both fail
Agreed. iMac is already thin as it is before 2012. Yes it is a heavy machine when you need to lug it around for moving or servicing. But that's just the way all desktop is.
Making it thinner while pushing the technological boundary is asking for troubles. We don't know what symptoms it's gonna have in following months due to excessive thinness, even the "old" iMac has its own problems.
Maybe some people would like to have an iMac with A6x SoC and PowerVR SGX 554MP4 GPU.
Well not me .. so no, thanks .. not all of us playing Temple Run or random iPhoto project on ocassions, buddy