Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think it was some interview where some representative said that while their competitors still have to release their first hybrid drives, they are already on the third generation.
Hmm, maybe some hybrid hard drives did make it to the market circa 2006 but I recall the tech guys talking up a storm only for it to be stillborn.

I would have to say that the Momentus XT is probably the first hybrid hard drive to be successful and known. (Even if it is 2nd generation.) Western Digital and Toshiba are just coming to the market. Toshiba even offers write caching.
 
Hmm, maybe some hybrid hard drives did make it to the market circa 2006 but I recall the tech guys talking up a storm only for it to be stillborn.

I would have to say that the Momentus XT is probably the first hybrid hard drive to be successful and known. (Even if it is 2nd generation.) Western Digital and Toshiba are just coming to the market. Toshiba even offers write caching.

I'm not sure there were hybrid drives as such, but the combination of a hard disk and a flash drive under Windows.
 
I'm not sure there were hybrid drives as such, but the combination of a hard disk and a flash drive under Windows.
I went and dug up some information back then. John C. Dvorak constantly talked about them all those years ago.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/03/07/hybrid-hard-disks-are-here/

The 2.5-inch drive features up to 160 Gbytes in hard disk technology combined with as much as 256 Mbytes of flash memory. Samsung has worked with Microsoft since 2003 to develop the hybrid drive to save power consumption and cut boot time for the software firm’s new operating system.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/23/notebook-with-hybrid-hard-disk-hhd-launched/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2177638,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347918,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2079195,00.asp

All of these was tied into Vista support.
 
Actually, you are wrong. Caching is complicated. That's why why the Seagate Momentum only uses the flash as a read cache. The problem is that whenever it writes, it has to check whether the data written is in the read cache, and either invalidate the read cache or make two copies. It's complicated. And that's for a read cache; a read/write cache is much more complicated.

What Apple does is two things: First, treat SSD and spinning hard drive as one item. That is actually very simple to do. If they did nothing more, then whatever happens to be in the first 128 GB by coincidence would be fast, and whatever is in the rest would be slower. Second, move data to a "better" place from time to time. That is something that is done already: There is automatic defragmenting which combines pieces of fragmented files together, and there is hotzoning which moves heavily used items to the start of the drive (on a spinning hard drive, the first tracks are faster than the last ones).

So one very simple change that doesn't cause any problems, plus a slight modification to algorithms that are already in place. That's exactly the right thing to do.




No, what Apple is doing is actually very, very simple, and it is amazing that nobody did it earlier.
Caching is not complicated. Its done all the time for efficiency. Its just writing to the SSD so that it can use the faster read speed of the SSD. Might be complicated for the Momentus since its a HDD with very limited flash. Different story for a SSD and HDD combo.
 
Caching is not complicated. Its done all the time for efficiency. Its just writing to the SSD so that it can use the faster read speed of the SSD. Might be complicated for the Momentus since its a HDD with very limited flash. Different story for a SSD and HDD combo.

It's easy if you are not the one that has to implement it. It's easy if you don't mind data loss if the computer loses power at the wrong moment. If you want it absolutely bullet proof, as it needs to be for a file system, it's bloody hard.

You say "its just writing to the SSD". It's not. It's writing to the SSD and remembering that now the data on the SSD is what counts, and not the data on the hard drive. While in other cases it's the data on the hard drive that counts. And it has to be done on the driver level because the OS doesn't know about it.


"You're implementing it wrong"

Hybrid drives should have the complete volume in hard disk as backing store.

I'm never going to rely on such a brittle scheme as what is claimed about the Fusion Drive.

I guess Apple went for this because you can't open the iMac anyway.

What you want is caching, and caching is much more complicated. Apple's Fusion scheme is very simple to implement and therefore very stable. I recommend you have a look on Apple's website about the implementation of Filevault, and you will realise that these guys actually know what they are doing.

Having thought about it some more I'm a bit surprised Apple have bothered with it. It's only ever going to be a short term feature on desktops as we will get to the point where SSD's are economic enough to fully replace hard drives.

The feature is a lot more suited to multi-drive systems, especially NAS's and to a lesser degree the Mac Mini and Mac Pro.

There are stories (recently on theregister) that say shrinking Flash drives is reaching the limits, and manufacturers don't want to pay the $5bn investment for a new plant. And the point where you can replace a 3TB Fusion drive with 3TB of flash without passing out when you read the price tag is very far away.
 
Last edited:
(2) No you do NOT need fast access to you 150 GB of photos. You need fast access to only the subset of photos you want to work on anf to the set of thubnails and to the database index. 99% of the photos can stay on the slow drive. The trick is for OS X to "know" which 1% to keep on the fast Flash. There are ways for an OS to make a good guess about this. It's not a new idea, they taught multi-level storage in computer science classes in the 1980's but low cost flash is new so now we see it used.

Well, there are about 15,000 RAW photos all in a single Lightroom catalog. I don't want to get into separating them all out into different smaller catalogs because I jump around a lot and that quickly gets confusing. For example, was that picture of the mountain I took a few years ago categorized as "Landscape"? "Travel?" Was it part of "Jake & Lisa's Wedding"? Who knows. I like to keep them all in the same catalog, tag them, and then quickly filter down.

So that's why I do need fast access to all 15K photos at once. Well, I don't "need" it, but it's brutally slow at times with the internal iMac drive. Sure, I could add external SSD storage, but that gets really expensive.
 
What you want is caching, and caching is much more complicated. Apple's Fusion scheme is very simple to implement and therefore very stable. I recommend you have a look on Apple's website about the implementation of Filevault, and you will realise that these guys actually know what they are doing.

This Fusion would be a cache without backing store.

I've had both generations of Momentus XT, and now I'm going to get the new Toshiba. Of course I want hybridization to be done transparently by the drive, I don't trust having that running in the OS, even if it were Sun Microsystems implementing it perfectly.
 
This is nice tech, but in my opinion Apple has come too late.

I can get a 512 GB flash drive for under 400$ nowadays, which is more than enough for what I need. No magical drive switching just plain old fast flash storage.

How much is a 1TB flash drive?

How much of the stuff on that 512GB will actually get accessed frequently and how much will just sit there? tying up expensive bits just sitting idle, when it can be sitting on much cheaper bits sitting just as idle.
 
It's easy if you are not the one that has to implement it. It's easy if you don't mind data loss if the computer loses power at the wrong moment. If you want it absolutely bullet proof, as it needs to be for a file system, it's bloody hard.

You say "its just writing to the SSD". It's not. It's writing to the SSD and remembering that now the data on the SSD is what counts, and not the data on the hard drive. While in other cases it's the data on the hard drive that counts. And it has to be done on the driver level because the OS doesn't know about it.




What you want is caching, and caching is much more complicated. Apple's Fusion scheme is very simple to implement and therefore very stable. I recommend you have a look on Apple's website about the implementation of Filevault, and you will realise that these guys actually know what they are doing.



There are stories (recently on theregister) that say shrinking Flash drives is reaching the limits, and manufacturers don't want to pay the $5bn investment for a new plant. And the point where you can replace a 3TB Fusion drive with 3TB of flash without passing out when you read the price tag is very far away.
You're talking about about complications that is the norm for any modern computer. Hence, why I label it as simple. Modern computer can and does do these complicated things all the time, in the background, and very easily. Otherwise, things wouldn't just work the way they do.
 
The first generation hybrid drives from years ago relied on Windows support and failed in the market.

That would explain much of the bitter knee-jerk reactions against Fusion we're seeing here.

Microsoft apologists have hair-trigger tempers these days. But really. Who can blame them?
 
Well, there are about 15,000 RAW photos all in a single Lightroom catalog. I don't want to get into separating them all out into different smaller catalogs because I jump around a lot and that quickly gets confusing. For example, was that picture of the mountain I took a few years ago categorized as "Landscape"? "Travel?" Was it part of "Jake & Lisa's Wedding"? Who knows. I like to keep them all in the same catalog, tag them, and then quickly filter down.

So that's why I do need fast access to all 15K photos at once. Well, I don't "need" it, but it's brutally slow at times with the internal iMac drive. Sure, I could add external SSD storage, but that gets really expensive.

You don't need to do anything. As long as you're accessing those files, aka looking at it on your screen, then OS X will recognize that you're using them and automatically move them.
 
Fusion Drive is the first "wow" moment I've had during an Apple PR event in a long time, probably not since the original iPhone launch (when it was more like one hour-long wow). It shows they are still doing some innovation beyond "making it lighter and thinner".

If they'd sell an internal combo drive that had SSD + HDD included in one 3.5" enclosure, I'd buy one right now.

The seagate momentous drives with 4gb/500gb (7200rpm) and 8gb/750gb have been out for some time :)
 
They are using EFI so the 3 TB LBA limit should not be an issue. Then again do they fall back to BIOS legacy for other operating systems? Maybe they do not have the drivers just yet?

I was just reading this bit posted in that link.

Note: Boot Camp Assistant is not supported at this time on 3TB hard drive configurations.

Some other restrictions too like the flash drive cannot be partitioned and the HDD can only have one other partition.
 
optical drive

Does someone know if it's possible to connect Apple's Superdrive to a Time Capsule's USB port so the new iMac can use it as a remote disk?

Have anyone tried this with a Macbook Air?

I would prefer to have the superdrive connected to the TM USB port than having this on my desk. I don't use DVDs that often...
 
There are stories (recently on theregister) that say shrinking Flash drives is reaching the limits, and manufacturers don't want to pay the $5bn investment for a new plant. And the point where you can replace a 3TB Fusion drive with 3TB of flash without passing out when you read the price tag is very far away.

Sure, but as I said SSD is increasingly becoming a viable hd replacement - the Macbook Air and Pro are evidence of that. Just can't see this type of hybrid device ever going mainstream or having a long term place in the market.

The move to the cloud and increasing use of home NAS also reduce the requirement for higher capacity hd in desktops / laptops.
 
No its not. As soon as you combine two devices you get an overall MTBF that is lower than the lowest one. In the simplest case, 2 50000hr MTBF devices become one 25000hr MTBF volume.

Deleted.... read original post wrong
 
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree with your assertions regarding MTBF's and failure rates. In my many years calculating MTBF's in multi component systems the failure rate of a particular device is directly proportional to the sum of the components making up the device.

In simple terms if the failure rate of a particular device is 4 and you use two to make your product the failure rate would be something like square_root(FR1^2 +FR2^2) = in this case Square_root of (16 +16) = 5.7

Even intuitively, if it takes 2 hard drives in combination to store my data the failure probability is larger than if it only took one (either drive fails and I lose my data). Now I think you may be confusing the two drives as being redundant (which in the Fusion drive they are not). If it was indeed a redundant system than the overall failure rate would be reduced directly with the number of redundant elements.

A RAID1 mirrored (may not have the Raid # right) drive setup has a lower failure rate as a system than a single drive because now you need 2 drives to fail to cause a system failure.

We are on the same track. A lower MTBF is worse and that is what I say. If you combine two components, the failure rate is higher, i.e. the MTBF is lower.
 
You know, anger for anger's sake isn't attractive.

LOL

out of the Box, iMac has a laptop 2.5" 5400 RPM hard drive, have fun with that. :cool:

It looks darn sexy, I wish my TV was like that not my computer. until I (we) saw the new iMac I (we) never looked at the back of the iMac. Thickness is that important! :mad:

if it had default SSD drive and RAM upgrade ability on 21.5" - I would not mind the thinness.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.