Fusion nightmare

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by gnopx, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Feb 16, 2013
    i'm near to buy a 2012 mid-range macmini bto@2.6ghz, i'm planning to add 16 gigs ram from crucial, and a vertex 4 128 that already own with owc's data doubler kit.

    are there any troubles to use this configuration as is, two separate drive (ssd: os+app+swap and hdd: raw & itunes library)? or lastest mac osx automatically fuse it?

    i hate fusion but seems that apple wants impose it.

    i've read some threads about disk utility and mac osx installation that frightned me, but i hope its refers to original fusion only.

  2. macrumors 68000


    Apr 3, 2007
    1 Finite Place
    Fusion itself isnt really a problem, just have a back-up. as with any storage device or set-up, its essential.
  3. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Feb 16, 2013
  4. macrumors 603


    Apr 13, 2010
    i advise you to not do what you want.

    but it can be done. you need to put the ssd in the mini fully formatted. then install osx to it with the oem drive unplugged. the mini will see just the ssd and install osx to it. then plug the oem back in. Then the mini will see 2 drives you will get to pick the one you want to boot with via preferences.

    i advise not doing what you want because it is not easy to do and you are risking a lot for adding a small ssd.

    the kit is 38 with shipping. you want the ssd to be independent it is small. so it can fill easy. the ssd is ocz a company that has a history of crash and burn ssd's. also they may go out of business soon. see link


    but WTF why not if you want to do it.
  5. macrumors G5


    Nov 25, 2005
    Can you change the thread title to "Nightmare caused by irrational fear of fusion"? Why would you "hate fusion"? It's a brilliant idea that gives you the speed of SSD with the size of HD at a reasonable price, and the only thing hard to understand is why it hasn't been implemented on PCs many years ago.
  6. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Feb 16, 2013
    in my old mini, i had a intel g2 ssd and 500 hdd, an all work flawlessly...

    so you confirm me that now, when ML find an ssd and hdd connected automatically try to fuse it during installation? :mad:
  7. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Feb 16, 2013
    if i buy a fusion drive can i partition it? es. 228gb and 900gb

    so if i put in the first partition max 100gb of stuff i'm sure that they are in ssd, and the stuff i put in the second partition stay in hdd or i'm wrong?
  8. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Feb 16, 2013
  9. macrumors 68040


    Jul 10, 2008
    I just got my SSD today, I plan on installing it tonight or tomorrow as a Fusion setup. This is the first I heard about plugging in only the SSD, then installing OSX, then plug in the HDD. Can I not just install both, then select the SSD to install OSX to? What's the reason to not plug in the HDD right away?

    I wish I could find one definitive set of instructions, I keep hearing different things in different places.
  10. macrumors 603


    Apr 13, 2010
    MY instruction are for no fusion ssd + hdd , but 2 separate bootable drives.

    Do not use my instructions if you want fusion.
  11. macrumors 68040


    Jul 10, 2008
    Ok, I read that wrong then. Thanks
  12. macrumors 68020

    Jun 15, 2012
    CoreStorage can "control" your files much better than you can. It can move file blocks individually, which you can't (i.e. different blocks of the same file on different drives). It can move data between the drives while keeping the same file path hierarchy (unless you enjoy making sym links of things all the time).

    If you want to spend time moving your files about yourself, then fine. don't use Fusion. But you won't have better control of your files than Fusion can achieve.
  13. macrumors 68000


    Jul 22, 2002

    I have Time Machine but I also plan to do a full CCC backup tonight and do that every week or so.
  14. macrumors 68000


    Sep 19, 2006
    Millis, Massachusetts
    I don't get this fear of fusion that keeps getting posted in the Mac Mini section of Macrumors. Fusion or not... if you have 2 drives in your machine and one of them fails you had better have a backup to restore your data from. Plus 2 fusion drives have the same chance of failure as 2 drives that are not in a fusion array so why the fear?
  15. macrumors 68020

    Jun 15, 2012
    Very true. And yet people who denigrate Fusion often talk about setting up a RAID 0 volume!
  16. macrumors 68040

    Dec 17, 2009
    While I completely agree, the one advantage of 2 drives is that a lot of times what is on my "data" disk matters very little to me so if it fails I can continue on my day and recover/replace at a later date and time. With Fusion if either drive fails, you have to do the recovery now. You have no choice. With that said, if my OS drive fails in either scenario I'm doing the recovery ASAP so it only is sort of advantageous in this scenario to not Fusion. I did not setup a fusion drive on my 2012 (at least not yet) even though I am running a 240GB SSD and the stock 1GB drive. That was largely due to laziness though. I just didn't want to take the time to go thru the internet recover process when I got it.
  17. macrumors 68030

    Oct 21, 2012
    Personally, I like to control my own data - I want to decide what goes on the SSD and on the HDD.

    I have the OS + apps etc installed on the SSD, including my home folder. I then symlink stuff like my Documents, Music etc folders over to the HDD. That way, you get the benefits of the SSD for things that need it, but other crap doesn't touch it.
  18. macrumors 6502

    Feb 5, 2010
    I'm always amazed how people just tend to make things complicated for themselves...

    How does Apple impose it to you?
    And how do you hate things when you don't even understand how it works?
  19. macrumors 68030

    Oct 21, 2012
    it's not complicated at all. It takes about 1 min (1 ln -s terminal command for each folder) to set up after a fresh install, and gives the best possible performance (stuff you want to be fast is *always* on the SSD, and you aren't wasting write cycles by writing stuff that doesn't need to be written to the SSD). Plus, if the SSD fails - I don't lose my data as you would in a fusion drive.

    In fact, I bet I could do that quicker than I could setup a fusion drive in disk utility from a HDD and non-Apple SSD :p.
  20. Fishrrman, Feb 18, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013

    macrumors 603

    Feb 20, 2009
    "i hate fusion but seems that apple wants impose it."

    So long as you don't try to run Disk Utility from the recovery partition, I don't think you'll get a "forced conversion" of an SSD and a HDD into a "fused" drive.

    One way to BE SURE this won't happen is to install your SSD into a USB3 enclosure or docking station, and boot via USB3. In this case, Disk Utility won't try to "repair" the two drives, because one is attached externally.

    If you get the right USB3 enclosure or docking station, you won't lose much in the way of speed -- read times will be the equivalent of an internally-mounted drive, and write speeds just slightly slower.

    You want one with either an
    ASMedia 1051e controller chip
    or an
    ASMedia 1053 controller chip.

    I use such a dock, and get read speeds of 410mbps and write speeds of 247mbps (used with an Intel 520 series drive).
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Sep 2, 2008
    Metro Kansas City
    Using your method, you can only control where things go on a file or application or package level. Fusion controls it down to the block level.

    If I want my Aperture experience to be snappy, the Library should be installed on my SSD. But my 120GB library now takes up half of my SSD, although I may only actively use ~5% of that Library. Fusion will install that Library so the most touched items in it are on the SSD, and the least touched on the HDD, thereby conserving SSD space for blocks of data that matter. You can't do that with symlinks.
  22. macrumors 68030

    Oct 21, 2012
    How do you *know* it's doing that though? You have no way of knowing what's where.

    The way I do it - it's my choice what goes where. If I want the entire aperture library on the SSD, my choice. If I want it on the HDD, my choice. If I want it on my SSD with the masters/originals folder on the HDD - my choice. Fusion doesn't give you any control at all. Say I play a game twice a week - but I don't care how fast that loads up - do I want all 10GB of said game on the SSD automatically? Probably not. What about things such as your Spotify cache? That's accessed all of the time, so fusion will move it to the SSD - but does it need to be there? The HDD will perform adequately for caching like that.

    I like to think I know what I want fast access to better than the computer does. It's like anything in life - if you take the time and effort to get it perfect, and know what you're doing, it's worth it. For the average joe, Fusion will be an improvement, but if you're a power user - and know your way around - there's better options.

    Some people might like the ease of use of Fusion - but personally, I've put a lot of effort into making my hardware as fast as possible - to not do the same on the software side would be odd.
  23. macrumors regular

    Jun 3, 2004
    CoreStorage doesnt work like that. Its block level not file level. It moves hot blocks between tiers. It could be just a few MB in total of that game you play, same for spotify cache, iphoto library etc. Embrace storage virtualization, its more cost effective. You are storing your data in a pool of disk space called a logical volume group consisting of SSD and HDD. CoreStorage moves the blocks around in the background while your files live in the pool. Power user / average joe argument doesn't apply.
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Sep 2, 2008
    Metro Kansas City
    I've been a "power user" for quite a while, and have been managing my content between my boot drive and external drives, and then my internal SSD and external drives for quite a while. I knew where EVERY file was, and spent time juggling files back and forth in order to optimize my user experience. Since creating my home-made Fusion drive I now get the same user experience - actually a BETTER user experience - without any intervention on my part. I may be a "power user" but not such a technology snob to not adopt something that saves time and let me focus my energy on something else.

    I KNOW FusionDrive works the way I described as I can watch how each individual drive in the FusionDrive is read from and written to by watching them in iStat Menus. I also trust the assessment from Anandtech and they see the same thing, so that's good enough for me.
  25. macrumors 603


    Apr 13, 2010
    YEAH IT IS IRONIC Apple has come up with a great piece of tech. and people are afraid of it.

    They allow you to make a DIY version. I have a 500gb ssd and a 1tb hdd in a quad mini. I have a 250gb ssd and a 500gb hdd in a dual mini.

    People don't think it is good .

    people don't think it works better then there own management system.

    I think I finally have a mac with perfect drive setup. took me years to get one. I will say my 2010 mac pro was pretty good with drive setup. But this is better. the mini and a promise pegasus r6 have allowed me to have exactly what i want in drive management. I had a 2x 500gb raid0 ssd in the pegasus. but when the fusion came out i setup the 1.5 tb fusion and use the pegasus as tm cloned backups and storage.. I finally have speed size and redundancy in a small not tiny setup since the pegasus has size to it.

    I have 19.5 tb of space. I can expand it to 25.5tb.

    I have 2 clones of the fusion and a tm. I can ignore all the managing of info for weeks on end. I do need to empty the fusion once in a while but that is a simple click and drag to the pegasus.

Share This Page