Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

A question for fusion drive users

A

AppleHater

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 9, 2010
788
104
if you have used fusion drive for a while where the drive is filled up more than half, I'd like to ask you how is the performance nowadays compared to the early days

I expect it to slow down as you fill up the drive and the fragmentation happens. I want to know if it gets as bad as hard drive or actually being a fusion drive has done a good job of keeping things optimal still.
 
Mine has hovered around 50% for a while, and I haven't noticed a difference. Most of what you interact with is in the SSD anyhow.

Perhaps there's occasionally a bit mor shuffling in the background, as things get shifted about? But this doesn't impact performance, it just piques curiosity... Wondering what's being shifted, and why?
 
boros said:
Mine has hovered around 50% for a while, and I haven't noticed a difference. Most of what you interact with is in the SSD anyhow.

Perhaps there's occasionally a bit mor shuffling in the background, as things get shifted about? But this doesn't impact performance, it just piques curiosity... Wondering what's being shifted, and why?
Click to expand...
The shuffling doesn't happen, hopefully not while you're using, right?
 
AppleHater said:
if you have used fusion drive for a while where the drive is filled up more than half, I'd like to ask you how is the performance nowadays compared to the early days

I expect it to slow down as you fill up the drive and the fragmentation happens. I want to know if it gets as bad as hard drive or actually being a fusion drive has done a good job of keeping things optimal still.
Click to expand...

Don't think you understand how the fusion drive and OSX works.

The OS moves most regularly used files/apps to the SSD automatically. An SSD is an SSD so it won't slow down unless it's >90% full which I don't believe OSX allows. The HDD part holds everything else. Files are only moved between the two if they become more frequently used than whats on the SSD. So providing you use your iMac for pretty much the same stuff all the time, eventually nothing will need to be moved.

As for fragmentation, that's primarily a NTFS issue. HFS+ filesystem controls the fragmentation/defrag of files automatically.
 
I do understand and that's why I'm asking to find out the effects of the amount of frequently used contents being much larger than the SSD portion of the size.
 
AppleHater said:
I do understand and that's why I'm asking to find out the effects of the amount of frequently used contents being much larger than the SSD portion of the size.
Click to expand...

OSX will be stored on the SSD then the rest will be ranked in order of frequency of access and moved to the SSD until it's almost full. If something on the HDD moves above something on the SSD, I think files are only copied between the two when the iMac is idle so it doesn't interrupt your work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: qualo
cbrand493 said:
OSX will be stored on the SSD then the rest will be ranked in order of frequency of access and moved to the SSD until it's almost full. If something on the HDD moves above something on the SSD, I think files are only copied between the two when the iMac is idle so it doesn't interrupt your work.
Click to expand...
From the research on anandtech, Fusion provides block level caching with 4Gb reserved for new content - so your initial file loads will be going to the SSD. Promotion/demotion of content takes place when the machine is idle. I suspect (but haven't researched) that quite a lot of the non-core OS is on the hard disk because I rarely reboot and don't often use the underlying OS stuff.

My late 2012 is about 50% full and I haven't noticed any degradation in speed over that time.
 
AppleHater said:
if you have used fusion drive for a while where the drive is filled up more than half, I'd like to ask you how is the performance nowadays compared to the early days

I expect it to slow down as you fill up the drive and the fragmentation happens. I want to know if it gets as bad as hard drive or actually being a fusion drive has done a good job of keeping things optimal still.
Click to expand...

I have tested this with tools from www.digitalloydtools.com: http://diglloydtools.com/disktester.html

The FD only behaves partially like a regular HDD as it fills up. As it fills up there is an initial dropoff in speed, then it remains very flat out to over 95% full. It does not have the extreme slowdown of an HDD as it gets really full.

My recommendation is get SSD if you can but there is definitely a good usage case for FD. It is *way* better than a HDD, and the 3TB model gives a lot more space than is available or affordable on SSD. Someone who spends their budget on an SSD iMac than must resort to a cheap, slow bus-powered portable USB hard drive for frequently-used files is probably getting less overall performance than if they'd just gotten FD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: qualo
I have the late 2012 iMac and the performance is as good as ever. However, DriveDX, Disk Drill, and other disk tools show that wear level of the SSD at 67%, so only 33% remaining. While the regular 1tb drive is healthy at 89% remaining. I was worried about this and took it into an Apple store, but of course it passed all their diagnostics. The cost to get the SSD replaced was over $400..for 128gb, thanks but no thanks. The genius there didn't seem to think it was an issue. I don't do anything crazy to really wear it out. I know they said for the new model they adjusted the algorithm to not be as aggressive in moving files to the ssd. For the price discrepancy between the fusion drive and ssd, I think it's worth getting the fusion drive.
 
kappaz said:
I have the late 2012 iMac and the performance is as good as ever. However, DriveDX, Disk Drill, and other disk tools show that wear level of the SSD at 67%, so only 33% remaining. While the regular 1tb drive is healthy at 89% remaining. I was worried about this and took it into an Apple store, but of course it passed all their diagnostics. The cost to get the SSD replaced was over $400..for 128gb, thanks but no thanks. The genius there didn't seem to think it was an issue. I don't do anything crazy to really wear it out. I know they said for the new model they adjusted the algorithm to not be as aggressive in moving files to the ssd. For the price discrepancy between the fusion drive and ssd, I think it's worth getting the fusion drive.
Click to expand...

Wow an SSD being almost dead at only 3 years old?! Apple SSDs must be bloody awful. Standard SSD lifespan is usually 10+ years!
 
kappaz said:
I have the late 2012 iMac and the performance is as good as ever. However, DriveDX, Disk Drill, and other disk tools show that wear level of the SSD at 67%, so only 33% remaining. While the regular 1tb drive is healthy at 89% remaining. I was worried about this and took it into an Apple store, but of course it passed all their diagnostics. The cost to get the SSD replaced was over $400..for 128gb, thanks but no thanks. The genius there didn't seem to think it was an issue. I don't do anything crazy to really wear it out. I know they said for the new model they adjusted the algorithm to not be as aggressive in moving files to the ssd. For the price discrepancy between the fusion drive and ssd, I think it's worth getting the fusion drive.
Click to expand...
If that's the case the 128GB SSD port of the fusion drive will likely overwork and wear quicker, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back