Disabling SIP corrupts Fusion Drive?

[toke lahti]

Just tried to see if I could get my mini2012 (10.12.6) & hdmi splitter (Deltaco HDMI-245) & monitor (hp L2335) to work together.
Booted to recovery, csrutil disable (to install switchresX), restarted and no boot.

Disk Utility's First Aid says:

Verifying storage system
Checking volume
disk1s2: Scan for Volume Headers
disk0s2: Scan for Volume Headers
disk1s2: Scan for Disk Labels
disk0s2: Scan for Disk Labels
Logical Volume Group A0C916E7-28DA-43B4-ABB4-FA4A29EA565F spans 2 devices
disk0s2+disk1s2: Scan for Metadata Volume
Logical Volume Group has a 41 MB Metadata Volume with double redundancy
Start scanning metadata for a valid checkpoint
Load and verify Segment Headers
Load and verify Checkpoint Payload
Load and verify Transaction Segment
Incorporate 0 newer non-checkpoint transactions
Load and verify Virtual Address Table
Load and verify Segment Usage Table
Load and verify Metadata Superblock
Load and verify Logical Volumes B-Trees
Logical Volume Group contains 1 Logical Volume
Load and verify A0B36F9F-3054-4D8A-985E-43A1810FDF7F
Load and verify 529B66F1-16EC-4B86-B009-5C9A8538300D
Load and verify Freespace Summary
Load and verify Block Accounting
Load and verify Live Virtual Addresses
Newest transaction commit checkpoint is valid
Load and verify Segment Cleaning
The volume A0C916E7-28DA-43B4-ABB4-FA4A29EA565F appears to be OK
Storage system check exit code is 0.
Repairing file system.
Checking Journaled HFS Plus volume.
Checking extents overflow file.
Checking catalog file.
Keys out of order
Missing thread record (id = 227663)
Invalid BSD file type
Invalid BSD file type
Invalid BSD file type
Keys out of order
Missing thread record (id = 3866666)
Missing thread record (id = 3903018)
Invalid BSD file type
Invalid BSD file type
Missing thread record (id = 3866666)
Missing thread record (id = 3903018)
Rebuilding catalog B-tree.
The volume miniFuusio could not be repaired.
File system check exit code is 8.
Updating boot support partitions for the volume as required.
An internal error has occurred.
Operation failed…

Can this be somehow because disabling SIP?
[doublepost=1506032412][/doublepost]Diskutil says:

Verifying storage system
Checking volume
disk1s2: Scan for Volume Headers
disk0s2: Scan for Volume Headers
disk1s2: Scan for Disk Labels
disk0s2: Scan for Disk Labels
Logical Volume Group A0C916E7-28DA-43B4-ABB4-FA4A29EA565F spans 2 devices
disk0s2+disk1s2: Scan for Metadata Volume
Logical Volume Group has a 41 MB Metadata Volume with double redundancy
Start scanning metadata for a valid checkpoint
Load and verify Segment Headers
Load and verify Checkpoint Payload
Load and verify Transaction Segment
Incorporate 0 newer non-checkpoint transactions
Load and verify Virtual Address Table
Load and verify Segment Usage Table
Load and verify Metadata Superblock
Load and verify Logical Volumes B-Trees
Logical Volume Group contains 1 Logical Volume
Load and verify A0B36F9F-3054-4D8A-985E-43A1810FDF7F
Load and verify 529B66F1-16EC-4B86-B009-5C9A8538300D
Load and verify Freespace Summary
Load and verify Block Accounting
Load and verify Live Virtual Addresses
Newest transaction commit checkpoint is valid
Load and verify Segment Cleaning
The volume A0C916E7-28DA-43B4-ABB4-FA4A29EA565F appears to be OK
Storage system check exit code is 0
Verifying file system
Checking Journaled HFS Plus volume
Checking extents overflow file
Checking catalog file
Keys out of order
Missing thread record (id = 227663)
Invalid BSD file type
Invalid BSD file type
Invalid BSD file type
Keys out of order
Missing thread record (id = 3866666)
Missing thread record (id = 3903018)
Invalid BSD file type
Invalid BSD file type
Missing thread record (id = 3866666)
Missing thread record (id = 3903018)
The volume miniFuusio was found corrupt and needs to be repaired
File system check exit code is 8
Error: -69610: Error parsing fsck program XML format output
Underlying error: 8: Exec format error
[doublepost=1506032472][/doublepost]I guess APFS can't come soon enough to Fusion Drives...

 

[EugW]

I don't understand the draw of Fusion drives in 2017. If I had one I'd probably just split into a separate SSD and HD and run them as separate volumes. Less to go wrong that way, and you can control what goes where. Of course, that would necessitate an SSD that's bigger than 32 GB though.

Actually, if I betcha a lot of people would jump at the chance at buying a 512 GB SSD along with a 2 TB HD, but alas, an option like that does not exist.

 

[toke lahti]

I don't understand the draw of Fusion drives in 2017. If I had one I'd probably just split into a separate SSD and HD and run them as separate volumes. Less to go wrong that way, and you can control what goes where. Of course, that would necessitate an SSD that's bigger than 32 GB though.

Actually, if I betcha a lot of people would jump at the chance at buying a 512 GB SSD along with a 2 TB HD, but alas, an option like that does not exist.

Well, I was going to reply: "This thread is not about that, make another one for that."
But sadly, I have this obsession trying to make other people understand other people's opinions, even if it's usually just waste of time, since people really don't want that.

So, I'm trying to move my daily "light for power user" computer tasks from MP3,1 to MM2012 just to save on electrical bill.
My daily light usage includes 2-3 monitors, 8 windows of chrome, total of 160 tabs, Apple Mail with 100k e-mails + 300k spam archive. Size of my system+home dir is 900 GB.
Now, if I have bought MM2012 for $300 and some cables+splitters+switchers for another $300 to do the same with Mini than I have used to do with MP,

Would You suggest me to
#1) to buy 500GB ssd and split things from my home dir to some external drives and remember to timemachineBU all of those?
#2) to buy 1TB ssd and run out of space somewhere near future?
#3) to buy 2TB ssd and pay more of it than the value of the whole project
#4) make a 2.12 TB fusion drive, which is in daily use as fast as #3, but costs only a fraction of it

 

[EugW]

No, like I said in my post, I’d separate the Fusion drive into SSD and HD. For no change in cost, you would have a 128 GB SSD as the boot drive and 2 TB as the data drive, but with a safer file system and better control of what is placed on the SSD.

 

[toke lahti]

No, like I said in my post, I’d separate the Fusion drive into SSD and HD. For no change in cost, you would have a 128 GB SSD as the boot drive and 2 TB as the data drive, but with a safer file system and better control of what is placed on the SSD.

Well, the only problem would be that the data disk would have the speed of hdd. Now it has the speed of ssd. The reason why Fusion Drive was invented.
Anyway, there are people who got their Seagate SSHD mixed like mine. Without Fusion or ssd involved. Would be the same hassle.

The real question is, did disabling SIP had something to do with this?
Out of offtopic, again...

 

[EugW]

Well, the only problem would be that the data disk would have the speed of hdd. Now it has the speed of ssd. The reason why Fusion Drive was invented.
Anyway, there are people who got their Seagate SSHD mixed like mine. Without Fusion or ssd involved. Would be the same hassle.

The real question is, did disabling SIP had something to do with this?
Out of offtopic, again...

No, your data drive doesn’t have the speed of SSD. There can be significant speedups for data but there can also be slow downs of system files. Therein lies the problem. Furthermore, you shouldn’t consider Apple’s Fusion to be like Seagate’s hybrid but it isn’t quite the same thing.

IMO if you’re going to be futzing around with the system you probably shouldn’t be running as Fusion. The fact that even Apple won’t run it’s primary file system format on Fusion says something about its complexity.

 

[chrfr]

Can this be somehow because disabling SIP?

No, changing the SIP setting would have nothing to do with disk corruption.
And for what it's worth, I use a Fusion Drive in a 2012 Mini and I'm totally satisfied with its performance and operation.

 

[Fishrrman]

I disable SIP on ALL my OS drives. No problems.

 

[toke lahti]

No, your data drive doesn’t have the speed of SSD. There can be significant speedups for data but there can also be slow downs of system files. Therein lies the problem. Furthermore, you shouldn’t consider Apple’s Fusion to be like Seagate’s hybrid but it isn’t quite the same thing.

I know what FD and SSHD is, but do you really understand how FD works?
I have 128GB ssd part in it. 99% os system files read and write by sestem will stay on ssd side. Meaning almost all the time it is as fas as plain ssd. And for the data, most of my data, which I use daily or weekly, will also fit in the ssd side. Meaning it is again almost all the time as fast as plain ssd.

 

[EugW]

I know what FD and SSHD is, but do you really understand how FD works?
I have 128GB ssd part in it. 99% os system files read and write by sestem will stay on ssd side. Meaning almost all the time it is as fas as plain ssd. And for the data, most of my data, which I use daily or weekly, will also fit in the ssd side. Meaning it is again almost all the time as fast as plain ssd.

So if that's the case for you, why do you even bother keeping it as a Fusion drive then? Just separate them out and better protect your data. Fusion drives are inherently less safe, as you have now discovered. You're basically multiplying your chances of catastrophic data corruption, on an ancient file system.

BTW, if you separated them apart, you could actually install High Sierra on the SSD, running as a native APFS drive.

 

[toke lahti]

So if that's the case for you, why do you even bother keeping it as a Fusion drive then? Just separate them out and better protect your data. Fusion drives are inherently less safe, as you have now discovered. You're basically multiplying your chances of catastrophic data corruption, on an ancient file system.

Why, you still ask?
And yet you answer by yourself: less safe, much faster, much bigger.
I handle the the safety with timemachine and ccc clones. And take the speed and space, thank you.
I've used FD for few years now with my macpro, macbookpro and now with mini.
There has been glitches, but most of them wouldn't been avoided by not using FD.
Multiplying by two (or power of two) isn't too hard for me.
I've even tried to divide the risk, you can search that from MR.
Seems to be, that you can't raid1 two FD's. That's a bummer, since it would be the ultimate cost-effective way with cMP.
But seems to be that secret FD source code isn't that clean. Because of that, imho, we'll have to wait for FD AFPS little longer. Doesn't hurt me, my macs are now 10.10, 10.11 & 10.12. (Plus 10.6 via virtualbox, to use my favourite Epson scanner sofwtare...)