How long will fusion drive on Late 2013 iMac last?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by iAVERY, Nov 8, 2016.

  1. iAVERY macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #1
    It is the 1TB fusion drive so it has the 128 GB of SSD not the 24 that is on some of the iMacs fusion drives. If I could do it over I probably would of just got 256 SSD. But how long does the drive last? It gets light use. The computer is in great working condition. And how much would it be to replace? If the HDD dies can I just connect a thunderbolt external drive to it?
     
  2. DeltaMac macrumors 604

    DeltaMac

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Location:
    Delaware
    #2
    It could fail tomorrow - or you could get more than 10 years out of the two devices that make up the fusion drive.
    There's really no way to predict, but if I wanted to guess, first fail would be the HDD.
    Just keep in mind that if either of the devices fail, the fusion drive is lost.
    Keep a current backup on an external drive for that possibility (you would have a backup drive anyway, right?)

    If the HDD dies, you still lose the fusion drive (which is a virtual volume that uses both drives)
    Depending on the type of failure, the bad drive may affect your system where it needs to be removed. Using an external drive may not help if the internal HDD has failed.
    Thunderbolt drives could be more expensive than opening up the iMac and replacing a dead drive.
    I would expect that you would have to pay for parts, and probably 2 hours labor (whatever that might be for you at a local shop) just to replace an internal drive.
     
  3. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    One way you can avoid 'losing it all', if your fusion setup fails is to separate the two.

    If you split the fusion drive and manually organize the data, when the HDD fails, you can still use your Mac because the OS and everything (presumably) are on the SSD portion.

    When I used a fusion drive I split mine, and in addition to enjoying faster speeds, I had a great level of control over my data, though some prefer to keep them joined.
     
  4. steve23094 macrumors 68000

    steve23094

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    #4
    Waste of time. You were spreading the same FUD in this thread http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/case-for-unfusing-the-fusion-drive.1975280/ and you rightly got shot down.
     
  5. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    It's funny you would post that when you're wrong, nobody shot me down, that I can tell you.

    I was right and everyone knew it, As for anyone that didn't, I doubt they understood it.

    Fusion is slow and it's clear to me now that you must have a fusion drive and you're trying to make yourself feel better about it. Hope you succeeded.

    Splitting your fusion drive is faster. Take it from someone who's actually done it.
     
  6. iAVERY thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #6
    Im pretty sure all that breaks the warranty though lol
     
  7. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    Well you're wrong

    If you don't feel comfortable with it, then obviously don't do it. But it doesn't void the warranty.

    I literally split mine and then rejoined it when I sold it, I checked with Apple and the warranty was intact. It doesn't void your warranty.
     
  8. steve23094 macrumors 68000

    steve23094

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    #8
    For anyone investigating this issue, don't listen to this guy. He doesn't know what he's talking about and speaks FUD.

    It's important readers have accurate details and don't make decisions based on misinformation. Read this thread http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/case-for-unfusing-the-fusion-drive.1975280/ for a full explanation, everybody told him he is wrong but he likes to stick his head in the sand.
     
  9. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #9
    Arguing against my point doesn't make sense.

    I'm not doing anything besides providing an informed pov...

    One option is to have an internal SSD, and an external HDD.

    Option 2 is to have an internal SSD, and internal HDD (unfused).

    Just so you know many people with an internal SSD are using option 1. According to you they must be ridiculous.

    Well I can tell you they're not, it's effectively the same thing as having both drives internal. You're using two separate drives, one for media files and one for system files. It works. Trust me
     
  10. bplein macrumors 6502

    bplein

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Location:
    Austin, TX USA
    #10
    If a 128GB (or smaller in some Fusion Drives these days) SSD in standalone (or "un-fused") mode floats your boat, do it. That said, for a general purpose primary desktop, I'd rather have a large SSD where I can keep all of my OS, apps, and a lot of my personal data, and use a Fusion Drive for "other data".

    What I've done with my 2012 iMac (1TB Fusion) is the following:

    • Boot from 256GB external Thunderbolt SSD (now upgraded to 512GB)
    • Upgraded the HDD from 1TB to 2TB, and re-fused it with the 128GB internal SATA SSD.
    This gives me 512GB of SATA-II speed SSD for OS, Apps and lots of personal data, plus 2+TB of HDD (accelerated by SSD) for pictures, music, etc. I still get a write acceleration from the Fusion capabilities.

    For newer PCIe based SSD systems, the speed of the PCIe vs. my internal SATA-based 128GB SSD becomes significant. But the small size of the SSD is underwhelming and splitting it makes no sense for me any more.
     
  11. MacUser2525 macrumors 68000

    MacUser2525

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #11
    Says the pot calling the kettle black. There is no way in the world a fusion drive is faster simply due to the fact of the extra overhead involved in running it as opposed to a simple straight forward save to load from only a SSD with no OS decision involved in as to where is that data located. Is it on the SSD is it on the HDD now who knows probably only fractions of a second to do that but it is still slower than pure write to this device only situation.
     
  12. steve23094 macrumors 68000

    steve23094

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    #12
    Link to where I made that point or it didn't happen. It looks like you have jumped into something without the full facts and understanding of the issues being raised. Read the thread I linked if you're not lazy, because you clearly haven't done so.
     
  13. MacUser2525 macrumors 68000

    MacUser2525

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #13
    Yeah I will get right on it if you knew anything about programming then you would know when you add in extra layers to a process it slows it down no if ands or buts about it. And the poster who responded to you is right you are one of those "there are none so blind as those would will not see" types who will continue on with your foolishness no matter what simple common sense will tell you is correct. You add extra steps it takes you longer there is no way around it.
     
  14. steve23094, Nov 9, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2016

    steve23094 macrumors 68000

    steve23094

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    #14
    What on earth are you on about? You're attempting to make a case for something that isn't even on the table. Geeze, talk about a straw man argument.

    Because you can't be bothered to read the thread but are trying your best to sound like you know what the subject is I'll summarise it for you. Can you possibly manage the data across a separate SSD and HDD better than the Fusion algorithm can in a fused SSD/HDD? Answer: no. Read the thread and stop being lazy.

    BTW. I'm not oblivious to the fact you couldn't back up your claim that I made a certain statement with a linked quote. So you waded in with an argument about something that never happened. Good job. /s
     
  15. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #15
    Relax, he doesn't even know what he's talking about.

    He's seriously attesting that using an SSD as a boot drive and a separate HDD for other uses is a poor setup.

    He has no credibility

    Splitting your fusion drive is completely valid, and not only that, it's faster. Of course it is. That's why I made that thread
     
  16. steve23094, Nov 10, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2016

    steve23094 macrumors 68000

    steve23094

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    #16
    You have absolutely no chance to manage the data across a split Fusion better than macOS can on a fused drive.

    Stop spreading FUD.
     
  17. coldsweat macrumors 6502

    coldsweat

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Location:
    Grimsby, UK
    #17
    To answer your question - the fusion drive will last a good few years, if one fails - you 'should' then be able to split them (dependant on the type of failure), or just use an external like you stated.

    Despite what the anti-Fusion fanatics will tell you, Fusion is a good solution & works completely without any user intervention. I have a Fusion drive in my iMac & a pure SSD in my MacBook Pro & to all intents & purposes the Fusion iMac seems just as fast. If you want an easy life with something that works without having to worry about it, stick with Fusion & ignore the FUD - but if you're a 'tinkerer' & want to do the manual file management thing - split away!!!!
     
  18. Fishrrman macrumors G4

    Fishrrman

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #18
    steve23094 wrote:
    "You have absolutely no chance to manage the data across a split Fusion better than macOS can on a fused drive."

    Huh?
    What?

    Your sentence above means nothing.

    I've been "managing" my data across five (count 'em, FIVE) separate drives and partitions since I set up this Mini almost 4 years ago. I keep no less than SEVEN volume icons on my desktop at all times, sometimes more than that.

    I have no problems "managing" where things go, and I -PREFER- to do it "my way", rather than let the OS "do it for me".

    It's a matter of personal preference, that's all.
    I know where things are supposed to go.

    My opinion only.
    Others will disagree.
    Some will disagree vehemently.
     
  19. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #19
    This guy doesn't know much

    and I'm not
     
  20. steve23094, Nov 10, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2016

    steve23094 macrumors 68000

    steve23094

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    #20
    Comprehension not a strong suit I see. I'm guessing you're another one that hasn't bothered to read the linked thread. You have just made a different point.

    Are you claiming that by placing self selected files and apps on a separate SSD and others on a HDD you can effect better overall system performance than those same two drives fused? Because that's total FUD. There is no way you can out think the Fusion algorithm. It works on a block level which you can't even do, always moving your most commonly used files (including OS) to the SSD portion and using the SSD as a temporary write. If you often use an app or docs it will store frequently used blocks on the SSD. If you think you know better and manually shift files you will waste your SSD space whilst degrading overall performance in other areas, overall a net loss in time wasted waiting for your HDD bottleneck.

    I haven't even mentioned the effort required to manually move those files around. But that's your time you're wasting, not mine. If you're a control freak that's your choice. But don't spread FUD that it's preferable to split a Fused drive amongst new users that don't know any better.

    Apple didn't invent Fusion tech, similar implementations have been around for years and it's a well worn paradigm.

    If you're claiming something else then fine. But that's the conversation you have commented on.
     
  21. iAVERY thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #21
    Thank you so much!!! Only one that actually answered!
     
  22. Fishrrman macrumors G4

    Fishrrman

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #22
    steve wrote:
    "There is no way you can out think the Fusion algorithm. It works on a block level which you can't even do, always moving your most commonly used files (including OS) to the SSD portion and using the SSD as a temporary write."

    Why would I -ever- want to do that?
    Why would I want my "commonly used files" moved around from one drive (SSD) to another (HDD)?

    I specifically set up my drives and volumes so that my "commonly used files" will ALWAYS reside on a volume that is SEPARATED FROM my OS and accounts.
    I don't want them "moved" from the locations in which I store them, ever. I go out of my way to segregate my files.

    I keep virtually NOTHING in the folders inside my home folder (exception: the home/Library folder gets managed by my apps and the OS, so I leave it alone).

    I set up my drives and partitions so that the OS folders and files will -ALWAYS- remain in one place only -- on my boot volume.

    By doing this, I keep my boot SSD "lean and clean", with lots of free space. ALL of my data files are kept on separate volumes and separate drives, such as a "Music" volume, a "Media" volume, etc.

    Having said all that, I would have no problems advising a newbie or non-tech-interested user in using a fusion drive setup. Makes it easier for them with just one "drive icon" to manage.

    It's just that after 30 years on the Mac, I prefer to think different.
     

Share This Page