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

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Whackintosh, Feb 24, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #1
    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).
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    Location:
    Long Island/North Jersey
    #2
    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.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    WhiteIphone5

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    #5
    7200 if 27" iMac
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    Location:
    Long Island/North Jersey
    #6
    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.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Whakatane, New Zealand
    #8
    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).
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    #10
    It's possible but I think more SSD only options will be more likely.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl
    #12
    No.
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #13
    I do not believe this is correct. Fusion is managed at the block level from everything that I have read.

    /Jim
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    phoenixsan

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    #14
    For me....

    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:(


    :):apple:
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #15
    That's exactly what Ars says about it:
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #16
    Oops, I missed the updates. The original guesses were file level but that's been debunked. Thanks for the links.
     
  17. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Lancer, Feb 25, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013

    macrumors 68000

    Lancer

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Australia
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #20
    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
     

Share This Page