So how are you liking the Fusion drive?

[KaraH]

I can see the logic in the Fusion disk idea, - but for me - no thanks. For the average user it's probably fine, but I like a bit more control over what goes where.

Same here, I do not want something deciding an application I have not used in awhile (or at all if I just compiled it) should be on the HDD. I think I can trust myself to remember 'executables on the SDD and data on the HDD and when in doubt the SDD is better' after several decades of hardware/software hacking.

One thing I heard that concerns me if true: does the system force fusion on you when you format your ssd blade?

 

[eroxx]

Has anyone else verified that SSD keeps approx. 4gb free for writing? Where are the official reviews?!

 

[torana355]

Same here, I do not want something deciding an application I have not used in awhile (or at all if I just compiled it) should be on the HDD. I think I can trust myself to remember 'executables on the SDD and data on the HDD and when in doubt the SDD is better' after several decades of hardware/software hacking.

One thing I heard that concerns me if true: does the system force fusion on you when you format your ssd blade?

I was in the same mindset as you but after using my 3TB fusion for two days my mind is starting to change. Fusion does an excellent job since it works on a block level, not a file level. My 27"" iMac feels like a pure SSD system. In fact its quicker then my 2011 MBA and 2008 iMac with a Samsung 830 SSD in it when it comes to disk related activity's.

Now im still going to replace the HDD with a SSD so i can use bootcamp but if i didn't need bootcamp i would stick with the fusion drive for sure.

 

[KaraH]

I was in the same mindset as you but after using my 3TB fusion for two days my mind is starting to change. Fusion does an excellent job since it works on a block level, not a file level. My 27"" iMac feels like a pure SSD system. In fact its quicker then my 2011 MBA and 2008 iMac with a Samsung 830 SSD in it when it comes to disk related activity's.

Now im still going to replace the HDD with a SSD so i can use bootcamp but if i didn't need bootcamp i would stick with the fusion drive for sure.

I am a bit concerned when I hear some of the arguments against fusion though. Plus, would there not be an overhead vs a pure SSD?

 

[AppleFan360]

I am a bit concerned when I hear some of the arguments against fusion though. Plus, would there not be an overhead vs a pure SSD?

The people that are arguing against the Fusion drives are usually the ones that don't have them.

I'm impressed with how my Fusion drive is functioning. My iMac is working like a champ and runs like it's a full SSD system.

 

[torana355]

The people that are arguing against the Fusion drives are usually the ones that don't have them.

I'm impressed with how my Fusion drive is functioning. My iMac is working like a champ and runs like it's a full SSD system.

QFT. Mine works brilliantly! I can see how it would not be perfect for professionals with huge video/photo library's that need SSD access speed to everything but for most home users Fusion is going to impress.

 

[robeddie]

The people that are arguing against the Fusion drives are usually the ones that don't have them.

I'm impressed with how my Fusion drive is functioning. My iMac is working like a champ and runs like it's a full SSD system.

My whole problem with the fusion drive is something the well-respected John Siracusa has pointed out: That it's a 'transitional' technology, essentially a band-aid until the era of 100% SSD drives.

In a couple of years, when we're putting 2tb and 3tb full SSD's in our iMacs, we'll look at these iMacs with fusion drives and think how quaint they are.

 

[torana355]

In a couple of years, when we're putting 2tb and 3tb full SSD's in our iMacs, we'll look at these iMacs with fusion drives and think how quaint they are.

Why does that even matter, in a few years time i will upgrade anyway, at least for now i can have SSD speeds and plenty of storage for a decent price. Right now a 1TB SSD is extremely expensive.

 

[pete78]

My whole problem with the fusion drive is something the well-respected John Siracusa has pointed out: That it's a 'transitional' technology, essentially a band-aid until the era of 100% SSD drives.

In a couple of years, when we're putting 2tb and 3tb full SSD's in our iMacs, we'll look at these iMacs with fusion drives and think how quaint they are.

But isn't that true with most "current" technology? There will always be something bigger/better in the future? Right now, large SSDs are just not affordable for most people, so Apple came up with a temporary fix until they are. Not a bad compromise.

 

[robeddie]

But isn't that true with most "current" technology? There will always be something bigger/better in the future? Right now, large SSDs are just not affordable for most people, so Apple came up with a temporary fix until they are. Not a bad compromise.

True. And yes, I saw that retort coming.

I guess all I can say is that with my 2011 iMac, I can easily drop in a 1tb SSD in about 6 months (when the price goes down a tad more), while with the 2012 models, you're gonna be stuck forever with the hard drive you got.

Obviously, for folks who buy a new computer every 2 years, none of this is much of an issue, but for those of us who are in the 4-5 year camp ... the 2012 iMacs are not so appealing.

 

[AndiS.]

Why does that even matter, in a few years time i will upgrade anyway, at least for now i can have SSD speeds and plenty of storage for a decent price. Right now a 1TB SSD is extremely expensive.

That's the way I see it as well, people are barely getting their iMacs and there are already many discussions about future possibilities.

 

[torana355]

I guess all I can say is that with my 2011 iMac, I can easily drop in a 1tb SSD in about 6 months (when the price goes down a tad more), while with the 2012 models, you're gonna be stuck forever with the hard drive you got.

I can drop in a 1TB SSD down the line in the 2012 model....

 

[robeddie]

I can drop in a 1TB SSD down the line in the 2012 model....

Um, have you seen the teardown? Getting to the drive is a tad difficult in the 2011, but doable (I've done it twice already). In the 2012 iMac, it's gut-wrenchingly difficult - and good luck getting the thing back together properly once you're done.

 

[KaraH]

Um, have you seen the teardown? Getting to the drive is a tad difficult in the 2011, but doable (I've done it twice already). In the 2012 iMac, it's gut-wrenchingly difficult - and good luck getting the thing back together properly once you're done.

I would do what the pros recommend: ship it somewhere to have it done. Like OWC.

Of course, that means some fun logistics like wiping your system before sending it and getting it packed to ship off.

 

[torana355]

Um, have you seen the teardown? Getting to the drive is a tad difficult in the 2011, but doable (I've done it twice already). In the 2012 iMac, it's gut-wrenchingly difficult - and good luck getting the thing back together properly once you're done.

Multiple members on here have already done it with ease. Ive pulled my 2008 iMac apart many times and it was extremely easy. Applying double sided VHB tape is not rocket science.

 

[Luvin]

My whole problem with the fusion drive is something the well-respected John Siracusa has pointed out: That it's a 'transitional' technology, essentially a band-aid until the era of 100% SSD drives.

In a couple of years, when we're putting 2tb and 3tb full SSD's in our iMacs, we'll look at these iMacs with fusion drives and think how quaint they are.

I tend to agree with you but I think you're severely underestimating how long the transition will take. You say a couple years... take a good long look at SSD prices. They have gone down from the high $/GB they were but are still no where close to HDDs. I think it will take much longer (4-5 years.)

 

[eroxx]

speed vs older iMac with ssd?

I saw a post saying the 2012 fusion drive was faster than a 2008 iMac with samsung 830 SSD. I'd certainly hope the 2012 is faster than something 4 years older! I'm wondering if anyone can comment on the comparison between 2012 and 2010 (also with ssd?)

 

[Ctrl2k]

Interesting input here from various people. I create both stills and video ("film") productions professionally. I work with HD, 2.7K footage and beyond, and 22 and up MP RAW stills.

I'm coming from a loaded 2011 iMac with a 256GB SSD and a 1TB hard drive for things like my iTunes library.

On the 2011 iMac, I kept all my apps and their support files and caches on the SSD. Everything else was on the HDD.

However I can tell you now even that explicitly split (SSD/HDD) setup is too slow for serious video editing. I run through more video than could even fit on that 256 SSD in a session usually, considering caches and so forth. And iPhoto and Lightroom are kind of slow running off an HDD as they have so many smallish files to load.

What I do is run all my video and photo editing off of a Promise R6 12TB Thunderbolt RAID array with 6 drives. Running in RAID 5 it runs over 700MB/sec reading and writing at the same time, which is far faster than even the built in SSD on this latest iMAC. I run in RAID 6 for dual parity (8TB free with 3 drives that can fail before the raid dies), and even with that overhead I am seeing faster performance than the built in SSD.

So the irony here is an array of spinning discs via thunderbolt still beats (or matches) any one SSD in speed - with far more space.

One could potentially edit video off of a large SSD, and that same array loaded with SSDs would probably max out the TB link at 1,000/MB a sec. But you're also going to wear those SSDs out faster doing that (marginally) at a far higher cost.

[For comparisons, the less drives in the array the slower it goes. The Pegasus R4 with 4 drives maxes out around 500MB/sec - still the throughput of a fast-ish modern SSD. Spinning raid TB arrays with less drives are even slower]

Bottom line is no video professional would ever choose to edit off the Fusion drive setup (or a standlone HDD) vs a fast RAID, or split and edit off the internal HDD. They will, if they can afford it, use a RAID of some form (the faster the better) to speed up their work. Or they'll get a huge SSD and work off that. The internal HDD is fast enough to video completed video of course and to look through photos, but if you're actively editing either you need a huge SSD or a fast RAID - which on a price/performance basis is still far cheaper than that big SSD.

As for stills, editing RAW is a very data intensive task. These are huge files that need to be loaded quickly to work on them, and/or the thumbnail caches need a quick load. Running off a HDD is not fun for these programs.

So what the heck is the Fusion drive good for then? It's speeding up the OS. It's keeping the most often little cache files and programatic bits super fast and ready to load off of those chips of the SSD. It's keeping your pro apps ready to launch at a momen't notice. I have a ton of programs and all of them and their supporting libraries just fit into 120GB or so. They all fit on the SSD, and then when I launch them all their intensive data lives off the RAID - no discernable loss in speed.

The downfall of Fusion is you can't tell the OS explicitly where you want what. On my first boot of the new 2012 27"er after I transferred all my data, many (oddly not all) the non-apple apps I migrated like Photoshop loaded slowly off the HDD.

I left it on overnight then rebooted. The next pass, all the apps I ran that loaded slowly off the HDD before now loaded super fast off the SSD as they had with my older iMac. All was righted again.

Now on the surface, this isn't a bad thing. I have my super fast large raid for performing the actual work, and my normal apps run quick. I don't use all those 120 GB of apps every day, so it won't hurt me if some are moved off to the HDD over time (as I don't touch them) to free up space for the things I do work on. And if I load them in the future? A few relaunches and they'll move back to the SSD. It guarantees I can have one non-split drive for all my slow and fast data and the system is relatively good about keeping what should be where.

The bad thing is it's semi uncontrollable. You can't force something onto the SSD, though if you run it off the HDD a few times it seems to get moved there. And large files will all eventually go to the HDD. That one time you want to show a client your fancy new project and it happens After Effects for whatever reason moved back to the HDD because you hadn't touched the comp in a month will be annoying, having to wait when you didn't before. But for the most part, it seems it will "just work" (at least day one is showing me just that with the system!)

The other bad is as some have said, its like running a RAID 0 in your computer. Gotta make sure you back up as there are now two points of failure. Nothing to defend that one - it is what it is. I tend to move critical files to the RAID for some safety and of course double backup. (RAID 6 in a 6 drive array only fails when 3 physical drives fail at once - a rare event - and it can survive a 2 drive failure and run whereas Fusion will die when one drive goes) Everyone seems to think SSDs are crash-proof but they fail like spinning drives do, just less often. Backups are necessary in all cases.

Sure you can edit all this stuff and view it off of an HDD, but once you use a SSD or a fast spinning RAID, you never want to go back. It saves so much time and makes the system so much more responsive. And for a pro time is money as they say.

In conclusion - Fusion is a set of compromises to make it so you can "set it and forget it" - have one drive without having to think about what goes where and still have a lot of data storage. You can get your OS to boot quick, apps to (usually) load in a second, and still plow more "big" stuff onto the drive like your itunes library. No symlinks, no messing around - it all works. And it's far cheaper than 3 TB or 1 TB of flash storage.

But it isn't explicit - for that you need split storage. Apple doesnt seem to offer that now (a 256 or 512GB SSD + HDD option would be nice). Your only for explicit storage is to go 768GB SSD at a huge cost, or split your Fusion into a kind of small 128GB SSD and a HDD. But with fast external storage for doing real work, and a HDD fast enough to simply consume content, I think the ease of use of Fusion outweighs the downsides.

In the end time will tell... after I use it for a month I'll revisit my opinion.

 

[flynz4]

In the end time will tell... after I use it for a month I'll revisit my opinion.

Excellent post. My big decision is where to keep my 360 GB Aperture 3 library. The two options would be:

1) My existing 8TB Thunderbolt R4 (configured as 4TB RAID 10)
2) Internal 768 GB SSD (along with OSX, user files, etc)

Answering that leads to the two options for purchasing the 2012 iMac.

a) 768 GB SSD
b) Fusion drive

If I go with the fusion drive... I would either keep the HDD empty... or split the Fusion. I hate moving away from stock configurations (for a variety of reasons)... so I would probably just keep the HDD empty by limiting the data on Fusion to less than 100GB or so.

As it stands now... my default decision is to get the 768 GB SSD. The biggest reason is to give me the option of keeping my A3 library resident on the SSD. Before I make my final decision... I want to benchmark between using an SSD and Pegasus R4 for my Aperture library.

From my calculations... the 768 GB SSD will be large enough if I offload my music and video to the Pegasus, but still allowing me to leave my Aperture library on the SSD.

When I am done with this machine... it will become my wife's (she takes my hand-me-downs). For her, 768 GB will be adequate forever. I know that if I "cheap-out" and go with fusion... there will come a time that I am pissed with myself for not spending the extra $K now. Between my wife and I... this machine will be in our house for about 5 years (based on my 2-3 year upgrade cycle). The idea of having spinning media in a client computer by then will make the machine feel like a throw-back to the 90's.

Hence... I am about 90% sure that I am going with the 768 GB SSD.

/Jim

 

[CarloUK]

I am a photographer as well using Lightroom
You only keep the ones you are working on in your local catalogue along with your portfolio. Your archived catalogue go on the external drive. That way everything is accessible and catalogued but your working files are fast and keeps Lightroom slick

 

[Yougotcarved]

So what the heck is the Fusion drive good for then? It's speeding up the OS. It's keeping the most often little cache files and programatic bits super fast and ready to load off of those chips of the SSD. It's keeping your pro apps ready to launch at a momen't notice. I have a ton of programs and all of them and their supporting libraries just fit into 120GB or so. They all fit on the SSD, and then when I launch them all their intensive data lives off the RAID - no discernable loss in speed.

The downfall of Fusion is you can't tell the OS explicitly where you want what. On my first boot of the new 2012 27"er after I transferred all my data, many (oddly not all) the non-apple apps I migrated like Photoshop loaded slowly off the HDD.

I left it on overnight then rebooted. The next pass, all the apps I ran that loaded slowly off the HDD before now loaded super fast off the SSD as they had with my older iMac. All was righted again.

Now on the surface, this isn't a bad thing. I have my super fast large raid for performing the actual work, and my normal apps run quick. I don't use all those 120 GB of apps every day, so it won't hurt me if some are moved off to the HDD over time (as I don't touch them) to free up space for the things I do work on. And if I load them in the future? A few relaunches and they'll move back to the SSD. It guarantees I can have one non-split drive for all my slow and fast data and the system is relatively good about keeping what should be where.

The bad thing is it's semi uncontrollable. You can't force something onto the SSD, though if you run it off the HDD a few times it seems to get moved there. And large files will all eventually go to the HDD. That one time you want to show a client your fancy new project and it happens After Effects for whatever reason moved back to the HDD because you hadn't touched the comp in a month will be annoying, having to wait when you didn't before. But for the most part, it seems it will "just work" (at least day one is showing me just that with the system!)

.....

In the end time will tell... after I use it for a month I'll revisit my opinion.

Thing is you can avoid the downside by keeping the hard drive empty, ie keeping your fusion drive below 128Gb full. If you want speedy apps then IMO Fusion drive as it stands is pretty unworkable. For the casual user its fine but you mention you wouldnt want to have to auickly show a client some work but Aperture wont load. Well if you cant deal with unpredictability (like me) then the whole fusion system is a no go. Because it works on a block level, even if the program loads quickly, a certain operation or tool in the program might be on the HDD if it hasnt been used loads so its a real god awful crapshoot as to what will be fast what will be slow.

But the problems solved if you do what I intend to do, keep the HDD empty by limiting the used space on the fusion drive to 128Gb. Sure youre wasting a 1TB HDD but so what thats like £100 worth of hardware? Well worth the price for guaranteed SSD speeds on all your apps forever (assuming like most people you could fit your programs in 128Gb. I find it hard to imagine anyone at this point in time needing much more space for just apps). And you can even use it as a time machine backup partition so not wasted at all.

Theres literally no downside since you already have a fancy shmancy big RAID system for your media, as long as you dont need more than 128Gb for apps/OS (which I doubt) you're golden!

This is what I'm gonna do. Of course I'd love a bigger all-SSD solution, a 256 or 512Gb all-flash option would be perfect but unfortunately I cant afford to splurge on the massive price tag theyve forced us to choke down for flash only so this is the best option for me!

 

[motrek]

Thing is you can avoid the downside by keeping the hard drive empty, ie keeping your fusion drive below 128Gb full. If you want speedy apps then IMO Fusion drive as it stands is pretty unworkable. For the casual user its fine but you mention you wouldnt want to have to auickly show a client some work but Aperture wont load. Well if you cant deal with unpredictability (like me) then the whole fusion system is a no go. Because it works on a block level, even if the program loads quickly, a certain operation or tool in the program might be on the HDD if it hasnt been used loads so its a real god awful crapshoot as to what will be fast what will be slow.

You make it sound like a Fusion drive will load apps fast in most cases but every once in a while it will give you cancer. That's not really being honest though. Worst case is an app loads just as fast as it would on a non-SSD equipped Mac, i.e., probably most of the Macs that Apple sells. It might take a couple extra seconds and you certainly won't end up with egg on your face in front of a customer.

 

[Yougotcarved]

You make it sound like a Fusion drive will load apps fast in most cases but every once in a while it will give you cancer. That's not really being honest though. Worst case is an app loads just as fast as it would on a non-SSD equipped Mac, i.e., probably most of the Macs that Apple sells. It might take a couple extra seconds and you certainly won't end up with egg on your face in front of a customer.

HAHAHHA thats hilarious!! "But once ina while itll give you cancer" actually made me LOL!

Seriously though. Im not saying youll have egg on your face, I dont even have customers I was referring to ahat the other guy said about customers.

Thing is, once youre used to SSD speeds having something suddenly chug at HDD speeds is like that feeling when youre walking down stairs and you think theres one more than there is and you stumble. Its of course not devastating but its definitely a comedown.

For me keeping the HDD empty is a small price to pay for 100% SSD.

 

[torana355]

HAHAHHA thats hilarious!! "But once ina while itll give you cancer" actually made me LOL!

Seriously though. Im not saying youll have egg on your face, I dont even have customers I was referring to ahat the other guy said about customers.

Thing is, once youre used to SSD speeds having something suddenly chug at HDD speeds is like that feeling when youre walking down stairs and you think theres one more than there is and you stumble. Its of course not devastating but its definitely a comedown.

For me keeping the HDD empty is a small price to pay for 100% SSD.

Once again, have you actually used a Fusion drive with more then 128GB of data? I have for 4 days now and i have been keeping an eye on the HDD activity to see how it works, it never reads of the HDD alone, it always has some part of the file on the SSD which means you are always loading quicker then normal HDD speed. Usually it reads from the HDD and SSD at the same time splitting the workload between them sort of like a raid setup.

I have not come across a time where the system has suddenly dropped to HDD speeds, The only time it happens is copying large files to the system that are over 4GB. I think people need to actually try Fusion before commenting on it.

 

[bobright]

Once again, have you actually used a Fusion drive with more then 128GB of data? I have for 4 days now and i have been keeping an eye on the HDD activity to see how it works, it never reads of the HDD alone, it always has some part of the file on the SSD which means you are always loading quicker then normal HDD speed. Usually it reads from the HDD and SSD at the same time splitting the workload between them sort of like a raid setup.

I have not come across a time where the system has suddenly dropped to HDD speeds, The only time it happens is copying large files to the system that are over 4GB. I think people need to actually try Fusion before commenting on it.

Seriously. Ive got tons of music well over the SSD part as well as apps, and have had ZERO hiccups it is insanely fast.