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

fusion vs ssd

Anyone know if I can 'fuse' an internal ssd with an external ssd so it acts as one drive?
 
IA64 said:
But that won't act like a fusion drive. He's just merging two volumes.
Click to expand...

The OP didn't ask for a Fusion drive, he simply wanted to "fuse" a single logical drive out of 2 SSDs.

It would make no sense at all to make a Fusion drive out of 2 fast SSDs. Either Concatenate them or RAID-0 them for more speed.
 
hfg said:
The OP didn't ask for a Fusion drive, he simply wanted to "fuse" a single logical drive out of 2 SSDs.

It would make no sense at all to make a Fusion drive out of 2 fast SSDs. Either Concatenate them or RAID-0 them for more speed.
Click to expand...

Brilliant thanks. I will always backup. So they would basically act as one drive?
 
Mark Booth said:
...With a 95GB Aperture Library file, I was concerned that it was too big to fit on the SSD portion of a Fusion Drive. And it's a file that gets accessed a LOT when I'm using Aperture.
Click to expand...

Not that it's all that pertinent to the primary conversation, but I do see a fair number of folks who believe that the Aperture (and iPhoto) libraries are a single file. They are a "package" made up of many files and folders - the entire 95gb would never be opened at the same time. If you right-click (or command-click) on the Aperture library in Finder, you'll have an option to Show Package Contents. You can then see what's under the hood (a huge number of folders and files). If they've been stored inside the library, the original, unedited image files can be found, neatly organized into folders by date.

Fusion Drive is no different than RAM, in the sense that it manages expensive, fast memory by moving only what is actively needed into fast memory (and there's similar interplay between RAM and CPU, for that matter). An end user doesn't have to be concerned with what's put where when, so long as there's enough fast memory that the system doesn't bog down on a routine basis (monitoring page-outs when it comes to RAM, and there undoubtedly is or will be the equivalent for Fusion Drive).
 
ApfelKuchen said:
Not that it's all that pertinent to the primary conversation, but I do see a fair number of folks who believe that the Aperture (and iPhoto) libraries are a single file. They are a "package" made up of many files and folders - the entire 95gb would never be opened at the same time. If you right-click (or command-click) on the Aperture library in Finder, you'll have an option to Show Package Contents. You can then see what's under the hood (a huge number of folders and files). If they've been stored inside the library, the original, unedited image files can be found, neatly organized into folders by date.

Fusion Drive is no different than RAM, in the sense that it manages expensive, fast memory by moving only what is actively needed into fast memory (and there's similar interplay between RAM and CPU, for that matter). An end user doesn't have to be concerned with what's put where when, so long as there's enough fast memory that the system doesn't bog down on a routine basis (monitoring page-outs when it comes to RAM, and there undoubtedly is or will be the equivalent for Fusion Drive).
Click to expand...

Fair points. But, since this Mac purchase will be my last desktop Mac purchase for at least 5-8 years, I was interested in the fastest possible storage speed, even if it cost $600 more. Bare Feats has a comparison in the second half of this article:

http://www.barefeats.com/haswel2.html

Mark
 
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