You are completely missing the point of a Fusion drive. It is not to add redundancy like a RAID setup. Data loss is no different whether it is on a Fusion drive vs all one drive (SSD/HDD). You need a backup either way. What it does is allow you to pair a small fast SSD with a large HDD and 90% of the time have fast access to what you need. I’m just glad Apple doesn’t lock it down to only stock drives. I could pair my 6TB Gdrive with my 512GB flash drive if I wanted to.
The point of why it’s done wasn’t lost on me. It’s in my post.
Why it’s done does not compensate for why it shouldn’t be done.
And yes, there is a time and place for it that makes it a valuable tool. As in a RAID configuration.
And yes, you should always have a backup. But obviously in consumer land, that’s not happening as much as it does in the enterprise RAID situation.
Now if Apple wanted to tie volume spanning (fusion drives) into a requirement that a live automated backup is running, then great.
Windows doesn’t allow (with the built-in tools) to make a spanned volume using your boot device. Unless that spanned volume is part of a hardware RAID that is operating independently of the operating system (which means that the operating system hasn’t created the spanned volume).
This is a very valuable safety measure.
If Fusion Drives were about performance and capacity, Apple would use faster spinning large capacity hard drives.
Fusion drives are about trying to get decent performance out of a slow device by essentially throwing some buffer in there.
The choices should be between a full SSD solution and the fastest HDD solutions.
Creating a weak link to get away with using the slowest spinners is an idea that just shouldn’t have left the conference room.
High performance spinners of great capacities are cheap. You don’t have to go ultra cheap to use slower spinners and throw a cache at them, bump the price, give it a fancy name, and use that as an excuse to avoid using higher performance drives.
