I'm nearly there but undecided on 768GB SSD

[Chippy99]

SSD performance gradually degrades over time, with or without TRIM enabled.

Luckily, this can be remedied periodically by issuing an ATA Secure-Erase command to the drive. This wipes the drive completely, emptying all of the memory cells, and returns the drive to its factory performance level. Note, this is NOT the same as writing zeros all over the drive, which is VERY bad for performance! It is done at a drive controller level and flushes all of the memory cells simultaneously - it take just a few seconds, even on a large (say 256GB) drive.

Until recently however there was no easy way to issue a secure erase command to an internal drive in a recent Mac. The only way to do it was to boot linux from an external device and issue the command from there. But booting linux on a recent mac was not a trivial task by any means, due to linux boot loaders not being happy with Mac's EFI, rather than BIOS based architecture.

Fortunately this has recently been cracked. You can download a free linux image called Parted Magic, which I am delighted to say will now boot a Mac! And once booted, there is a simple utility in there to securely wipe your SSD and return it to factory performance. (Be careful to choose the secure-erase option, not the other ones!)

A point to note - if you install Parted Magic to a USB stick, you may need to remove all other USB devices (apart from a keyboard) in order to get it to boot. I don't know why, but there you go.

 

[iMcLovin]

I paid full price for 768ssd before they reduced the price. I haven't regretted the decision for a moment. If you are planning on keeping this machine for a few years, get the 768ssd. The user experience is worth it. Lighting fast loading,scratching. More reliability and no noise.

 

[MiniD3]

I paid full price for 768ssd before they reduced the price. I haven't regretted the decision for a moment. If you are planning on keeping this machine for a few years, get the 768ssd. The user experience is worth it. Lighting fast loading,scratching. More reliability and no noise.

Thankyou for your reply
Yes I am counting on keeping the machine for a lot of years
The best I have got out of a windows laptop was 4 years, even then they were all slow and 3 years was about maximum
Even my friends high end Toshiba is falling apart after 3 years, still working but only just
............Gary

 

[flynz4]

SSD performance gradually degrades over time, with or without TRIM enabled.

I think that statement is slightly misleading. It is certainly true that a new SSD performance will degrade gradually... during the period of time known as "conditioning". However... that only happens to a certain point, at which time the drive is "conditioned"... and remains in that steady state. The extent is dependent upon the particular SSD.

That conditioned state is what I believe should be considered the natural performance state of the SSD... rather than the initial "factory fresh" artificially high performance state. Hence... I would generally not recommend that people secure erase SSDs as a mater of course... because the artificially high factory performance is only temporary.

Soon (measured in a few years)... new generations of SSDs will have "initial performance" and "conditioned performance" converge as the write block size is reduced. This will occur as NAND media is replaced with MUCH faster technology which will enable SSDs to approach the speed of system memory... about 1000 times as fast as today's SSDs (as measured in IOPS/latency).

This change is driving one of the most significant changes to computer architecture. Some of the worlds leading computer architects are actively defining the software architecture of this fascinating development.

/Jim

 

[benwiggy]

I paid full price for 768ssd before they reduced the price. I haven't regretted the decision for a moment. If you are planning on keeping this machine for a few years, get the 768ssd. The user experience is worth it.

I paid full price for Fusion Drive before they reduced the price. I haven't regretted the decision for a moment. If you are planning on keeping this machine for a few years, get the Fusion Drive. The user experience is worth it.

Seriously: CoreStorage that controls the Fusion drive is very clever. It is not a "marketing trick": it is intelligent, automatic tiered storage. It is a much cheaper option than the 768Gb SSD, and I'll bet that for the vast majority of uses, most people won't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Chippy99]

I would generally not recommend that people secure erase SSDs as a mater of course... because the artificially high factory performance is only temporary.

Well, if you keep the SSD only say 50% full, and you don't thrash it to death 24/7 then it can take months. And then a quick erase and reload and back to full speed. I wouldn't say it was a complete waste of time.

Soon (measured in a few years)... new generations of SSDs will have "initial performance" and "conditioned performance" converge as the write block size is reduced. This will occur as NAND media is replaced with MUCH faster technology which will enable SSDs to approach the speed of system memory... about 1000 times as fast as today's SSDs (as measured in IOPS/latency).

This change is driving one of the most significant changes to computer architecture. Some of the worlds leading computer architects are actively defining the software architecture of this fascinating development.

/Jim

Not meaning to be funny, or in any way insulting Jim, but do you actually know of such developments or are you merely repeating rumours and speculation you find on the web.

I work for an organisation (who I would rather remain nameless) who is at the forefront of in-memory database technology. My previous job was at Oracle, also working in this arena. But I know of no such imminent new technologies. As far as I am aware, nand flash (MLC and later TLC) will be the dominant "fast disk" technology for many years and I see nothing on the horizon to replace DRAM.

Maybe you know different however?

 

[flynz4]

Well, if you keep the SSD only say 50% full, and you don't thrash it to death 24/7 then it can take months. And then a quick erase and reload and back to full speed. I wouldn't say it was a complete waste of time.



Not meaning to be funny, or in any way insulting Jim, but do you actually know of such developments or are you merely repeating rumours and speculation you find on the web.

I work for an organisation (who I would rather remain nameless) who is at the forefront of in-memory database technology. My previous job was at Oracle, also working in this arena. But I know of no such imminent new technologies. As far as I am aware, nand flash (MLC and later TLC) will be the dominant "fast disk" technology for many years and I see nothing on the horizon to replace DRAM.

Maybe you know different however?

Yes, I know for a fact... and I am in fact driving the industry effort in this area. We have most of the top tier technology companies collaborating. We can discuss offline.

In memory database companies are expected to be an obvious "early adopter" in this area.

/Jim

 

[MiniD3]

Should I be concerned about this "degrading" ?

Been reading through the "degrading" replies,
Something I had not heard of before,
I'm guessing that even a fusion drive would have to experience this degrading as well due to the hybrid design?

How severe is this degrading?
How slow do the SSD's get? Is this a big reduction in speed?
Regards
Gary

 

[itsamacthing]

Come join the 768 Flash Club - I love my decision - and the external storage selections are outstanding via USB3 or Thunderbolt

The fusion drive is anemic with just 128GB of Flash, I wouldn't do it. If the fusion was 256GB of Flash, it would be a much better solution.

You can do a lot of reading about that in this forum if you look for threads from a few months ago when the whole thing was released a lot of us were banging our heads up against the wall about this. You should also read Adantech's review

 

[laserbeam273]

Been reading through the "degrading" replies,
Something I had not heard of before,
I'm guessing that even a fusion drive would have to experience this degrading as well due to the hybrid design?

How severe is this degrading?
How slow do the SSD's get? Is this a big reduction in speed?
Regards
Gary

Degrading is purely based on usage, so it could last 5 years, or it could last 6 months. From what I've gathered, it's usually closer to the former rather than the latter - the latter would only happen if you were doing constant sequential transfers.

My take on SSD degradation is that computers are made to be used. SSDs are excellent for increasing productivity, so I will happily use an SSD for disk-heavy tasks, even if it shortens the lifespan of my drive. If it fails, then I just swap it out for a newer and better one. Easy. Besides, in 2-3 years time, it may already be worthwhile to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

I think you should buy an SSD big enough to fit:
1) OS and all applications
2) Enough scratch space for your liking
3) A margin (maybe +30-50%), as data usage is ever increasing

This may work out to be just around 250 GB, so you'd probably want the 512 GB. 768 GB is another $300, which will most likely not be effectively used.

Photo storage should obviously be on spinning drives.

You should seriously consider putting more money into a great external TB RAID - I think that will be more worthwhile than getting the top GPU or 768 GB vs 512 GB SSD, or even top CPU.

You should also definitely upgrade RAM yourself - it's incredibly easy, and with OWC you can get 32 GB for $300. With Apple, 32 GB is around $700 and 16 GB is around $250.

 

[MiniD3]

What great feedback here,

Many thanks,
The safety catch is off, pulling the trigger soon,
End of financial year this month, lets hope my calculations are correct!
Starting to sound like 512SSD is still big enough
Although, if I get a 36mp camera next year, the 768GB may be "future proofing"
..........Gary

 

[ender78]

Many thanks,
The safety catch is off, pulling the trigger soon,
End of financial year this month, lets hope my calculations are correct!
Starting to sound like 512SSD is still big enough
Although, if I get a 36mp camera next year, the 768GB may be "future proofing"
..........Gary

I would highly recommend an external auxiliary SSD in a USB3 enclosure. One of my SSDs performs better on my 13 Retina MBP via USB3 than it does in my main machine a Mac Pro over the old SATA bus. With USB3 it looks like the performance hit of USB2 is gone. USB3 has a 5Gbps bus speed which is just a little shy of the 6Gbps speed of the drive. While thunderbolt is awesome it is difficult to buy enclosure only and add your own drive.

I would go with the OWC USB3 enclosure [http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/MSTG800U3K/] and a 500GB like the Samsung 840 which retails for around $350. Apples $600 upgrade price for the 512 disk is ridiculous.

 

[MiniD3]

I would highly recommend an external auxiliary SSD in a USB3 enclosure. One of my SSDs performs better on my 13 Retina MBP via USB3 than it does in my main machine a Mac Pro over the old SATA bus. With USB3 it looks like the performance hit of USB2 is gone. USB3 has a 5Gbps bus speed which is just a little shy of the 6Gbps speed of the drive. While thunderbolt is awesome it is difficult to buy enclosure only and add your own drive.

I would go with the OWC USB3 enclosure [http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/MSTG800U3K/] and a 500GB like the Samsung 840 which retails for around $350. Apples $600 upgrade price for the 512 disk is ridiculous.

Thank you for the link
The Samsung 840 500GB was quite a bit more expensive there
Your suggestion is most probably way out of my skill level at this stage
Your link does have some good prices on portable drives though, not sure how good the OWC brand is yet?
.....Gary