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.
256GB ssd too small?
- Thread starter bp1000
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For the cost difference above 256GB SSD you can get a decent NAS. 2TB of NAS is quite cheap nowadays and give you a great flexibility because it's accessible from any computer connected to the network.
So in case your iMac is screwed, your content is still safe in it. You still need backup though.
So in case your iMac is screwed, your content is still safe in it. You still need backup though.
I've got 256GB on my Haswell Air, and I have about about 120GB free at this point.
That's because my media files are stored on my server, which is now at about 10TB. Seriously, even 1TB is considered little space in 2013. 1 full rip movie itself is like 20GB.
But mobile devices are different. You want to have enough storage to avoid using external storage as an essential.
256gb is more than enough space to run essentials- OS X, software apps and programs, and even partitions of Windows and Linux... with some leftover space for music and movies.
For a desktop it doesn't really matter. It's stationary. You can have external storage plugged in at all times.
I'm actually wondering the same thing. Should I get a 1TB Fusion, 256GB Flash or 512GB Flash drive? I have about 200GB used on my existing iMac so 256GB seems kind of small. But I also think that it took a really long time to get from 100GB to 200GB. Maybe I could get away with 256GB. But then I also think that things are changing... people are downloading more data than ever (as opposed to keeping it on removable media). So 512GB seems better. Of course it's more expensive the 1TB Fusion drive but at least it's silent. And if I do go with that am I missing out on an almost as fast but twice as big Fusion drive?
I've been thinking about this, and just posted the following in another thread but feel it is appropriate here too.
Let's look at this a little deeper. The 256GB SSD and the 1TB fusion cost the same.
With the Fusion you get 128GB of SSD and 1 TB of 7200RPM disk, and the OS manages what is in the SSD vs the disk.
Do you really need more than 128GB of SSD if it is managed intelligently? I know I have a lot of 'junk files' that accessed infrequently but still take up space. If those are stored on the disk, I think 128GB of SSD will be sufficient. And I get 896GB of additional storage for pictures, videos, music, etc that don't need instant access every day.
Given those 2 choices the 1TB Fusion seems like a no-brainer. Someone please show me where I am wrong.
Let's look at this a little deeper. The 256GB SSD and the 1TB fusion cost the same.
With the Fusion you get 128GB of SSD and 1 TB of 7200RPM disk, and the OS manages what is in the SSD vs the disk.
Do you really need more than 128GB of SSD if it is managed intelligently? I know I have a lot of 'junk files' that accessed infrequently but still take up space. If those are stored on the disk, I think 128GB of SSD will be sufficient. And I get 896GB of additional storage for pictures, videos, music, etc that don't need instant access every day.
Given those 2 choices the 1TB Fusion seems like a no-brainer. Someone please show me where I am wrong.
You aren't wrong, the Fusion drive is a great option to take.
No you are unlikely to have more than 128GB of active or frequently used data that the OS puts on the SSD. The OS takes around 12-15GB and the apps maybe that again. Some data will also be intelligently shifted to the SSD... i dont know what but perhaps iphoto thumbs and meta data for example could be put there.
I didn't go fusion simply because i like to be in control of what data goes where and i dont like store everything in one place. I have a data drive and a backup drive which makes a copy of my data drive and the internal SSD, so i have some degree of redundancy.
There is also a slight speed advantage when opting for 256/512GB SSD's, 128GB tend to be slightly slower but in reality you probably wont notice it.
Also even with the USB overhead its possible that a well chosen external drive might be marginally faster than the internal one but really this is straw clutching.
I think it ultimately comes down to how you like to organise your data. Fusion gives you speed and size options, most people dont want to mess around external options apart from backing up. So from that point of view it's a very good option to go for.
If on the other hand you think the slightly increased speed and data segmentation matters you have the SSD options.
If 1TB or 3TB is sufficient to store all your data, it is a "no brainer" to choose Fusion.
My dataset is about to hit 4TB, however, and continues to grow, so even the 3TB option is not sufficient for me. Hence my adding an 8TB NAS. And if I had purchased the 3TB Fusion as I had originally planned, I'd need a new Time Capsule (my current is 2TB) to back it up.
So for me, it's more convenient to continue with a 256GB SSD since it gives me sufficient local capacity for everything but media (which remains on the NAS) and I can continue to use my existing Time Capsule.
I have 350GB of music alone, so SSD drives are always to small. Even 500GB gets filled up immediately. A terabyte is the smallest I'd want for the internal drive and the SSD of that size is way to pricey for my wallet.
It would be a total waste to store music on an ssd
If you like everything in one place a 3TB fusion would be good. But the more full it gets the more picky the ssd part is.
Will the file exchange slow down if both SSD and HDD gets full the data? Like more files to search for and move?
Think of it like a conveyor belt.
The ssd if full always keeps 4gb free. Anything new goes to the ssd, you notice this as its a real time action. In the background it moves anything it deems unused or infrequently used to the hdd. The fuller the drive gets the more it has to guess at what to move and what to keep.
It will prioritise apps, data, meta caches, os etc.
As I mentioned before, anything you move in real time over 4gb if your ssd is full will get split which isn't ideal if its a program. However it should eventually work itself out and move the files around.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. It's a good solution just not as fast read / write as the 256/512 unless something had changed since the MBA variants. It should manage it fine in most cases. If its full the drive is full and it will just be jostling for space and managing what it can. Really tho by that point it would be wise to start offloading data once you get to 700/800GB used.
In my view, it really is an unacceptable risk of having sensitive data *inside* your iMac. What happens when your iMac dies completely - like a mainboard failure or something? You have your machine fixed under Applecare and they decide to replace the machine and take away your hard disk. You *hope* it gets securely wiped. But sometimes these things get missed and mistakes are made and somehow your own disk finds its way into another machine with all your data on it.
I am not prepared to risk this. So all of my data is on an external USB3 drive - incidentally one that is faster than the Apple internal disk! Then the 256GB internal SSD is more than enough. If I have a catastrophic machine failure, my data disk stays at home!
I am not prepared to risk this. So all of my data is on an external USB3 drive - incidentally one that is faster than the Apple internal disk! Then the 256GB internal SSD is more than enough. If I have a catastrophic machine failure, my data disk stays at home!
Yes of course, but you can eliminate it completely by just accepting that an external disk is part of the required setup. You need an external disk for backup right? So as soon as you accept you have to have one, then why not two. Then it all makes sense - 256GB SSD is plenty and all your data is on an external disk.
Of course it's a completely different situation with a laptop where you really want everything internal. But this is the iMac forum.
Good question but the answer is totally dependent on your own use. For me, the 256GB drive on mr rMBP is plenty. It is a year old and I have used 91GB. I offload a lot of things to external drives so onboard storage is not all that critical.
This is how i look at it too. I have never been comfortable with storing all my data in one place. I have various external drives but none of them are SSD.
SSD has been a fairly recently option i tick when building a new PC, since about 2011. I simply store my OS (obviously) apps and caches on there. All my data is actually in the cloud. You could argue that too.
But for my work i use google docs (i dont need anything complex). I also use dropbox for file sharing with people at work and all data goes onto an external disk that is backed up twice.
I do however have copies from the cloud locally on the internal SSD, if you are concerned you could also run file vault.
Either way, it is important to segment your data and have more than 1 back up.
I can get away with 64GB on my computer. If you want to store data locally, then I'd suggest 128 or 256 depending on how much. The less-used files, store externally.
Personally (and this is just preference)... I do like my boot drive to be internal. It is quite easy to disconnect the wrong wire inadvertently... and disconnecting your boot drive could end badly.
Having said that... if I was to use an external boot drive (ex: a TB SSD upgrade)... then I would be likely to securely wire-tie all the connections to avoid inadvertent removal.
BTW: I do use FV2 on all of our computers... and my backup disks are encrypted. For my cloud based backup service (Crashplan+), I also use secondary encryption on my key... so I would guess that we are pretty much in alignment on the importance of data security, even if we have different (and I think valid) methods of implementation.
/Jim
----------
By contrast, I have a strong preference to store all of my data in one place (not necessarily on the same drive... but on a single "master computer"). My rationale is that it minimizes any confusion on the "home" for any data.
On that computer... I use a three pronged backup strategy:
- Time Machine/Time Capsule for local backup
- Crashplan+ for cloud based offsite backup
- CCC for clones of my media (to a rotated pair of HDDs... at least one of which is always offsite)
So if you comment about "Not keeping your data in one place" is about making sure that there are multiple managed copies so that it is always safe... then I agree 100%. If you think there is benefit of spreading the "home location" of your data across multiple systems... then I think the complexity of knowing where each individual "item of data" really "lives"... adds to much complexity. The result of that complexity can lead to inadvertent deletion of data unless one is extremely careful... and unfortunately, us humans are flawed.
Hence... I follow the simple "A\all data lives in a single place (i.e.: computer)" mentality... and I provide an extremely rock-solid backup plan to make sure that it is replicated and easily recreated.
/Jim
----------
BTW: One very nice benefit of "going external" is that it makes it more cost effective to buy into some "higher end" storage peripherals... knowing that may have value across several generations of equipment. And then... allowing you to purchase more "cost effective" machines relying more on the external devices.
An example might be my 8TB Pegasus R4. That can easily last through several generations of iMacs, as I update mine (about every 2 years)... and migrate my existing machines to other family members. My media can stay on the Pegasus giving me the performance that I need... and allowing me to buy more cost effective iMacs with less internal storage.
Now whether I actually choose to buy more cost effective machines is a different question.
/Jim
I stuck with the 256gb ssd
I've installed most apps and only used 19gb space. Aperture goes on soon plus my cache library so that's another 30gb. Still around 200gb free. So for me 512 would be a waste.
I have around 1tb of media that will live on an external drive. Most of it I will be able to access without that drive connected in aperture caches and iTunes Match. The movies I rarely watch now I have Netflix.
Happy with my decision now
It's all great for people how use enormous amounts of storage (I can't see how you would have 250GB of music, you can't listen to all of that right?) but I only need 128 for apps etc. and I need about 500GB of storage for some video-editing that I do. I don't like to manually fuss around with files and only have an external drive for back-up. The fusion 1TB seems perfect for me since I don't want all the hassle and basically I'm lazy (one of the reason's I like Apple). My only question is, does the HDD in the fusion makes noise? Or is it as quiet as the SSD. I'm not one of those people how put's their ear on the back and after that scream that it isn't silent, I just want to know if I would notice the difference if I'm working on my computer.
Yes me too. I am not advocating having no internal storage. I merely do not put personal documents on it. For the OS and programs etc then it's fine on the internal SSD.
I do have Bootcamp on an external SSD because I don't really need to do anything important in Bootcamp, so I can save the space on the internal 256GB SSD.
Last edited:
Lol why would you put 350gb of music on a SSD?
You could just make a cheap nas and steam the music to your mobile devices