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.
Fusion Drive kicks a$$ !
- Thread starter Absrnd
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Im hoping we can get that done with older early 2012 mac mini! I have the base model with a dual hard drive ssd for the main osx and 1tb on the other drive!
How do you enable that in osx ML? Will it work the same as Apple OEM ssd+hdd! I have a crucial 128gb ssd and a 1tb hdd forgot the brand tho.
How to:
http://www.petralli.net/2012/10/ana...macs-with-an-ssd-and-a-traditional-hard-disk/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_odnNpv-FQ
And yes, it will work the same as the orginal FD.
http://www.petralli.net/2012/10/ana...macs-with-an-ssd-and-a-traditional-hard-disk/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_odnNpv-FQ
And yes, it will work the same as the orginal FD.
Yes, but it is also relatively untrained (i.e. not taking benefit of the software that manages what storage). So you will obviously lose some speed when thet two systems are been used in parallel but I suspect all OS related tasks will be lightning fast. What you can expect some speed sacrifice will be accessing data like photo or video files in thumbnail format.
I can live with that.
I think we should really be saying "SSD kicks a$$". They truly are a huge difference compared to HDDs.
Nice to see what they've done with Fusion, but I'm sure soon enough SSDs will have storage/price that we won't need to worry about a HDD in a desktop.
Heck, imagine if there was no HDD in the iMac and it could have been thin right across like the new MBPs?
Nice to see what they've done with Fusion, but I'm sure soon enough SSDs will have storage/price that we won't need to worry about a HDD in a desktop.
Heck, imagine if there was no HDD in the iMac and it could have been thin right across like the new MBPs?
That's quite fast, but will the speeds increase with a 7200 RPM 1TB drive and what about the 3TB option? Will Apple increase the SSD drive to 256GB for the 3TB option or remain using 128GB? I realize they are still using Samsung 830s in this video and I'm really bothered by the read/write speeds the 128GB drive offers. If you compare the 2 drive capacities you will notice the 256GB is significantly faster in write speeds.
I just hope Apple uses the latest Samsung 840 Pro SSDs that released in October than the Samsung 830s for greater performance benefits, as well as provide a 256GB SSD.
I just hope Apple uses the latest Samsung 840 Pro SSDs that released in October than the Samsung 830s for greater performance benefits, as well as provide a 256GB SSD.
I'm not looking forward to having the hdd constantly grinding away in the background. That's why a 5200rpm drive is actually a good idea seeing as mechanical disk tasks will mostly run in the background, the noise will be more noticeable than the speed.
If the tests were done using a 7200rpm drive the 'fusion drive' result would still be exactly the same. The tests in the video were testing fresh data, so basically he just benchmarked an ssd which has a little more driver overhead than usual. You would very rarely notice a speed benefit with a 7200rpm storage drive. Old thumbnails would rely more on random access which would remain very similar. The only time you'd notice it is if you were to read from an old large file. Then you'd gain a 10-40% speed increase on those occasional times.
I'm perfectly happy with a 512GB crucial M4 that was cheaper than apple's entry fusion drive is. My drive has a little under half the storage but is silent and isn't constantly moving data for me. Two years ago I would have been far more excited about this technology.
If the tests were done using a 7200rpm drive the 'fusion drive' result would still be exactly the same. The tests in the video were testing fresh data, so basically he just benchmarked an ssd which has a little more driver overhead than usual. You would very rarely notice a speed benefit with a 7200rpm storage drive. Old thumbnails would rely more on random access which would remain very similar. The only time you'd notice it is if you were to read from an old large file. Then you'd gain a 10-40% speed increase on those occasional times.
I'm perfectly happy with a 512GB crucial M4 that was cheaper than apple's entry fusion drive is. My drive has a little under half the storage but is silent and isn't constantly moving data for me. Two years ago I would have been far more excited about this technology.
Is this something I can pop into my iMac? I've got an SSD in my MacBook and understand the value, but I likes me some storage in the iMac. Do you think there is any difference between the Fusion and say the Momentous XT? Will the fusion drive be available as a separate component? So many questions.
The Fusion drive is a traditional spinner HDD, a separate SSD, and some software glue. It's not a "separate component" and you can't "pop it in". However, depending on how easy it is for you to open your iMac case, it should be possible to add an after-market SSD and then configure it to be Fusion.
So from what I have heard and from what you have said the fusion drive is comprised of a separate m4 mSATA SSD and a separate magnetic hard drive for all options depending on build?
Really the computer will be the same as the top line bto ssd plus or minus a magnetic harddrive and fusion software running on top. There will be no awful HDD's with ssd cache built in? For some reason the fusion drive is advertised as a lower cost SSD alternative, that is how it is coming across to me. As if it is something other than an SSD. I don't want to be buying an iMac and finding out that they have some sort of propriety apple tech which is non compatible with other standardized storage components.
Would it be possible to have it configured with a 256 SSD, 1tb HHD and then run fusion software on top. I don't see why we have to be limited to such small storage to be using the technology. I hope that there are plenty of options for ssd's as I do not want to have to be installing one myself.
It still shouldn't matter. The way the Fusion Drive works, you're always writing and reading from the SSD first. It only ever fails over to the HDD if a write goes over the 4GB set aside on the SSD for writes, or if the data being read from is on the HD.
Really, you'd need a write test over 4GB, and even then, you only see the speed change after the 4GB limit is hit.
I wish people wouldn't assume that 5400 RPM HDs means they will be slow. Many good ones are just as fast or faster than 7200 RPM HDs based on how they are built. Now, a cheap 5400 RPM HD would definitely be slower. But we don't know until they are here and we can test.
Pretty sure it will e same drives on this Mac Mini. That seems slow, although don't think the other drive will make a difference. Point is if you need to get things done fusion is the way as time is money to me.
Can you find me a 5400RPM drive that beats a 7200RPM drive out of the current crop of drives?
*Some* manage fairly respectable sustained transfers, but when you start adding random IO they suffer badly.
In the 2012 iMacs I believe the SSD takes the form of their Flash daughterboard they use for MBAs and rMBPs. But it doesn't matter; all of the magic is in Mountain Lion. People have already put together their own Fusion configurations with both internal and external drives with standard components. And no, this isn't at all the same as Hybrid drives or anything else you've seen that tries to blend the technology.
If you use a larger SSD than 128GB, you're probably venturing into territory that Apple didn't spend too much time testing, but there's no reason why it shouldn't work.
I will have to check on what apple offers for their fusion and ssd options. At least I know know that I will be getting a dedicated SSD + HDD with fusion right? This could then theoretically be upgraded in the future.
Depending on what iMac you're looking at, some or all of these options are available:
1TB HDD
3TB HDD
1TB HDD + 128GB Flash, preconfigured as Fusion
3TB HDD + 128GB Flash, preconfigured as Fusion
768GB Flash
Even if by "Flash" they mean the proprietary daughterboards they use in MBA and rMBP, after-market options are available (e.g. http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/SSDAP2A6G240/). You could buy your iMac with Fusion, and then take a complete backup, swap in a new Flash drive, set it up as Fusion, and do a complete restore. You could buy it without Fusion and do the same thing with probably less need for the backup/restore.
The biggest unknown right now is how hard it will be to get at the 2012 iMac internals. I was squeamish against diving into a 2007, and decided against it. The 2012 only looks harder.
You need 10.8.2, an SSD drive, and a hard drive. It works with an external drive, but that is asking for trouble. Setting it up is complicated; the version of Disk Utility on Macs other than the ones shipping with a Fusion drive doesn't support it, so you have to start Terminal and use command line tools. Instructions are on the Internet, but not for the faint of heart. But all you need is there on 10.8.2.
And right now the process is destructive. You need a backup of everything, install MacOS X on a flash drive (you get 16 GB for £7.50) and boot from that, format the two drives as one Fusion drive, and restore your backup.
The rest works automatically.