Help DIY SSD fusion 2012 mini

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by jwjsr, Feb 2, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502

    jwjsr

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Location:
    Fairhope, Alabama
    #1
    UnLock?

    LLLLLLLLoooooooooong storu short,,, 2012 mac mini disk utility shows my diy SSD fusion worked and is now BLANK and requires ML install.

    Problem: I need to install ML(via my bootable CCC or use internet recovery) on the newly created fusion drive but disk utility indicates the fusion drive is locked or something.

    Internet recovery will run but when it asks where to install ML, there are 0 choices
    CCC doesn't recognize the fusion drive either when trying to clone from bootable mL clone. Disk Utility recognizes fusion drive but i can't modify it because "This partition contains a locked disk and can not be resized until it is unlocked

    So how do i unlock it and install ML?
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Recreate fusion drive again. Are you creating with a 10.8.2 disk utility (fix fusion drive) or command line?
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 6502

    jwjsr

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Location:
    Fairhope, Alabama
    #3
    with10.8.2 disk utility= I chose the box "fix" (no "fix fusion drive" option) on both the ssd and the hdd(they were in red) One of t he fixes seemed to hang with the beach ball about half way through. So iquit somehow and restarted from the external and to my surprise a fusion had been created according to disk utility so I repaired/verified the newly created fusion-no-errors suprisised me since i hd quit a fix that hung.

    i am now stuck trying to install ML from my bootable CCC backup or internet recovery to my Blank unrecognized 1.25 tb fusion drive.

    I am where I am through a comedy of errors on my part----

    1. being it didnt have the sata cable from 1tb hdd attached to logic board when reassembled after ssd install. I ran IR anyway and it installed ML on ssd from internet

    I then realized my error and opened the mini and attached the 1tb hdd sata cable to the drive and restarted and had what some people want a ssd with mL and a separate non-fused hdd. But I want fusion.

    2. error=I was using 10.8.1. At this point I remembered seeing some reference to 10.8.2 in these threads and updated to it.
    DU in 10.8.2 displayed the drives in red with a "fix" option and I thought I was home free. I did the "fix" option for both drives separately and I'll mention again their was no "fix fusion" option.

    That's where I am now, can't clone or reinstall to a drive that the system can't see

    ----------

    How would i recreate the fusion drive? I suspect someon is going to be nice enough to make go me into terminal?
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Location:
    Northumberland, UK
    #4
    I had similar issues with disk utility offering the fix but not doing it properly :)

    It seems to create the fusion drive but not format it. Once it's messed it up you can't do anything in the graphical disk utility as it has no options for modifying a fusion drive.

    I planned on using terminal to create everything manually, but found that using terminal to wipe the drive and rebooting was enough. This prompted disk utility to offer the fix again and this time it worked.

    There are loads of pages with guides around, below is one:

    http://blog.macsales.com/15617-creating-your-own-fusion-drive
     
  5. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    #5
    with the number of threads ive read with fusion problems i just cant see the point of it if you have a ssd drive already. I'd rather pick what i want on the ssd drive and really all you would want is the os and the programs. Files can be stored on the mechanical drive.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Location:
    Northumberland, UK
    #6
    The problems are really only at the creation phase though. So once the drive is created it's fine in day to day use.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 6502

    jwjsr

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Location:
    Fairhope, Alabama
    #7
    Thanks my friend, I'll give that a go tomorrow. I bet I have 20hours in this to date
     
  8. macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #8

    I used to think like that.

    the truth is once you built it. it is really good. it is simple to build. but you need to build it correctly.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 6502

    jwjsr

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Location:
    Fairhope, Alabama
    #9
    Thanks for the link, simple and worked exactly as said. only about the 3rd time i have ever used terminal
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502

    jwjsr

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Location:
    Fairhope, Alabama
    #10
    had i been aware enough to have upgraded to 10.8.2 and not popped the sata cable off during ssd install reassembly I could hve done this in 3 or 4 hrs max instead on 20+.
     
  11. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #11
    "with the number of threads ive read with fusion problems i just cant see the point of it if you have a ssd drive already. I'd rather pick what i want on the ssd drive and really all you would want is the os and the programs. Files can be stored on the mechanical drive."

    Exactly. What does the fusion concept really accomplish, other than relieve the user from having two drive icons on the desktop, and managing files between the two volumes?

    What happens when one of the "fused" drives fails? Does that render both drives unusable and unrecoverable (other than a replacement and re-initialization)? If the SSD drive suffers a failure, will the recovery partition still be accessible? What if it is not?

    With two separate drives, and a copy of the system on both, if one drive fails, the other is immediately accessible, immediately bootable and immediately usable so that recovery and repairs can begin. Not so with fusion.

    Fusion is "RAID for dummies". And folks familiar with RAID will tell you that, in the case of failure, recovery is complicated by the fact that two drives are RAID'ed.

    What's needed is a disk management utility that can "split" a fused drive into two separate drives, so that if one fails, both are not "lost".

    Another solution might be a recovery partition on BOTH of the drives in a fusion setup. That way, the Mac would still be bootable into recovery, regardless of which drive had failed.

    For years, I've had no problems managing multiple drive partitions on my desktop -- my Mac Mini setup (with 1tb internal HDD and 180gb SSD in a USB3 dock) has no less than -7- partition icons on my desktop. If I can manage seven, you can manage two!
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Location:
    Finland
    #12
    If a drive fails you lose everything in a fusion setup. I'm glad the two drive option works for you. I like the SSD speeds that fusion brings without a big dent in the wallet for capacity. If you backup often you don't have anything to worry about. CoreStorage moves blocks of data between tiers and as such you can't have a recover partition on each drive. Can you install a recovery partition on both drives in a RAID 0? No.
     
  13. macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #13
    an external time machine and an external clone are the minimum for proper backup.


    the problem is most don't want to do this.


    lets say you build a big diy fusion a 250gb ssd with a 1tb hdd.


    that is 1.25tb.


    well here is your minimum proper backup





    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1JM0JJ8528

    with 2 hdds one for your clone and one for your tm.


    so 83 for the case plus


    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148910

    two of these price of 99 and you are at 280 for backup. that is alot
     
  14. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #14
    "an external time machine and an external clone are the minimum for proper backup.
    the problem is most don't want to do this."

    Yup. I suspect before too long, we will start seeing all sorts of postings from distraught users, to the effect of, "My fusion drive failed, I don't have backup, what do I do next?"

    Regarding reply #12, with a 2-drive setup (one of the drives an SSD), I get "SSD speeds", same as with fusion.

    My setup is a 2012 Mac Mini i7 2.6ghz. My boot drive is an Intel 520 series SSD mounted on a Plugable "lay-flat" USB3/SATA docking station. With this setup, I see read speeds of 410mbps and write speeds around 247mbps. That's "fast enough" for me….
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
    #15
    The downside is that you have a ton of programs and other files on your boot drive that you hardly use, hogging up precious fast SSD space, and lots of files and other things on your HDD that COULD be on your SSD if you had room. Unless of course you don't do things like Aperture, Lightroom, Final Cut, Motion, Pro Logic, etc. and are just surfing the web and playing iTunes. But if you do any heavy lifting at all, it's nice to use the SSD much more efficiently than you can manually manage just by moving stuff around at the files/app/package level.
     
  16. macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #16
    yeah I am loving my 1.5tb diy fusion but I have true back up in clone form. and I have a tm. so no worries.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
    #17
    That's a given. Have clones, TM as well. But I always have, not just because I now have a DIY FusionDrive.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors 6502

    jwjsr

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Location:
    Fairhope, Alabama
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
    #19
    They serve different purposes. I use TM if I quickly want to find a document, image file, application, or something else I may have deleted up to 6 months or so ago. I can also go back and find older versions of documents if I need them.

    A clone, on the other hand, is only used if I have a catastrophic failure OR I'm installing a new drive or getting a new computer. It's NOT my "working set" backup like TM is.

    Besides, I'm not comfortable having just 1 backup, nor 1 kind of backup, so I have multiple backups in multiple formats. I have too much to lose if I ever lost all my data. I should also look into keeping a offsite non-mechanical backup as well; something like Carbonite or another cloud-based service.
     
  20. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #20
    "The downside is that you have a ton of programs and other files on your boot drive that you hardly use, hogging up precious fast SSD space, and lots of files and other things on your HDD that COULD be on your SSD if you had room."

    Absolutely NOT.

    I have no less than seven (SEVEN!) mounted volumes on my desktop at all times.
    I know where all my files are, and I manage them carefully.

    I keep 2 boot volumes (system, apps, accounts), 2 "main" volumes (the bulk of my day-to-day data), a "Music" volume (obvious), a "Media" volume (pdfs, video, pics), and a "General" volume (odds and ends). Plus I maintain an external backup drive and regularly dupe the contents of each volume to a backup.

    "if you do any heavy lifting at all, it's nice to use the SSD much more efficiently than you can manually manage just by moving stuff around at the files/app/package level."

    Everything on all my volumes is "managed" well enough and better than the OS could manage them as I wanted, thank you very much… :)
     
  21. Mike in Kansas, Feb 7, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
    #21
    So you are saying that every program, every cache, every preference, EVERYthing at the BLOCK level on your SSD needs to be there?

    I am not commenting on your organization/filing system - it sounds quite neat and tidy. A place for everything and everything in its place. I AM commenting on your ability (or lack there of) to mange the contents of your SSD and HDDs at a level of granularity not possible when managing files/programs/packages/etc.

    Case in point - my Aperture Library is 100GB and growing. And that's having it set up as "referenced", which means all of my source images are on an external FW800 drive and take up 400GB of additional space. Inside my Library are all of my videos (I keep them in my Library so iMovie has access to them and can organize them by date), the "versions" of all my processed images, all of the thumbnails and all of the previews. I have video and images going back to 2003. I can NOT break that Library down into any smaller size, even though I only use 5% of it on a regular basis. So in my old manually-managed 240GB internal SSD / 2TB FW800 external HDD arrangement, 42% of my SSD was taken up by my Aperture Library, even though I used no more than 5% of it at a time. That is VERY inefficient, but it is what I had to do to have the user experience (snappy photo editing) that I wanted. It also meant that I was continually pruning things from my SSD, continually moving video in and out of the Library, and going through all sorts of things to manage my precious SSD space.

    Enter FD. I have my Aperture Library on my FD array, and when it was first put on it appears to have been put onto the HDD portion of the array. The first time I launched it, it was slow, and I could watch in iStat Menus that the HDD was getting a workout, populating all of the thumbnails and other bits of the database that loads. Ditto when I would work on recent shots. However, after launching it a few times, it began to load much more quickly. I can see by watching iStat Menus that the SSD is now getting a workout, and the HDD is idle. So the portion of the Aperture Library that loads when launching Aperture is now on the SSD, but the rest of it (all of those video files, previews, etc.) that don't load when Aperture launches is still on the HDD. The first time I opened a project to work on the images in it I could see a slight lag. However, as I worked on those images over the next few minutes, it sped up. Now, when I go back to an image I already worked on, it's SSD quick. So I know that those "blocks" of data have been moved to the SSD. So now I have maybe 1GB of my Aperture Library on the SSD while 99GB is still on the HDD.

    In place of "Aperture Library" put "Lightroom Library", "iMovie Projects", "FCPX Projects", etc. Now suddenly, you don't have to choose where you put these things and move them around based on what you are actively working on. You put them all on a huge FD array and let OSX figure it out for you.

    As my needs and usage change, the location of my data AT THE BLOCK LEVEL changes. You can't manage data at that level manually, and you can't continually optimize your data to the level of optimization that FD does. "Optmization" and "organization" are NOT reasons to not use FD. Being leery of new technology, hesitant to set up an FD array yourself, large file moving or importing, risk-averse to doubling the possible failure rate (although the doubling of a small number is still small, and mitigated with a sound backup strategy) - those are all good possible reasons. Being able to optimize your data and user experience, not so much.

    And then there is the segment of the population that just does not like to give up control of anything. They don't like that Aperture stores things in a Library, they don't like the way that iWork stores things in iCloud, they don't like having to use iTunes to interact with their sound files. They want to do EVERYthing from the Finder, and NOTHING via managed apps. I am not one of those, having given up that sort of control when moving my home-based computing off of Windows some years ago. But I understand that some folks are like that, which is why auto manufacturers still make stick shifts, people still want a paper paycheck instead of direct deposit, and non-programmable thermostats still sold.
     
  22. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #22
    "And then there is the segment of the population that just does not like to give up control of anything. They don't like that Aperture stores things in a Library, they don't like the way that iWork stores things in iCloud, they don't like having to use iTunes to interact with their sound files. They want to do EVERYthing from the Finder, and NOTHING via managed apps"

    Interesting that you mentioned that.

    I have been a Mac user since 1987, and an Apple // user before that, but I have never owned an iPod or assembled a music library via iTunes for exactly that reason -- I don't want iTunes "taking control" over how I store my music. I have many tens of gigabytes of mp3 files, all stored in a standard folder/file hierarchy so I know just where they are.

    Same for iPhoto -- I keep most of my saved pics in organized folders that I direct, rather than iPhoto.

    I will _never_ use "the cloud". I simply don't trust it -- not only as a question of security, but what if the cloud "disappears" on you? There has been more than one outfit "up there" where users had stored data -- and then the outfit went out of business or simply disappeared on them, along with the data. Not interested.

    As a matter of fact, I'm not even signed up to iTunes or the App Store. If I need something, well, I either get it from the developer's site or... elsewhere....

    I realize most others do things differently... :)
     
  23. Mike in Kansas, Feb 7, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
    #23
    Do you have a programmable thermostat? ;)

    I got quite a chuckle out of your last comment by the way. I am NOT very well organized when it comes to folder hierarchy, and rely incredibly on Spotlight, auto Library organization (by date, by camera, by location, etc.), meta data and tags, etc.
     
  24. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    #24
    Can anyone tell me...

    Once I use the 10.8.2 GUI Disk Utility or command line from a clone of my Mac Mini 2012 OS and create a fusion drive, do I have to copy back the clone of the original OS that came with the MM for the fusion drive to properly work, or can I simply re-download a new version of OSX through the recovery partition/disk?

    I would prefer to re-install OSX fresh BUT will I still have the 'special' MM 2012 disk utility if I re-install, or must I always copy back the original OS that shipped with the 2012 MM?

    I want to make sure the fusion drive works properly (swapping data between SSD and HDD once SSD is 100% then back 4GB and sorting etc) and not just operate as a JBOD.

    Thanks for any info.

    IP
     

Share This Page