iMac Pro Base Model Teardown Reveals 2x SSD RAID Configuration and Four 8GB DIMM Modules

At least this explains the lack of the memory upgrade door; they probably can't make the door big enough to access full-sized DIMMs.

Still, I feel this machine shouldn't exist, and they should have gone back to a tower form factor Mac Pro like they used to have. Once you're paying $5K for a machine it really should be serviceable and expandable.
[doublepost=1514470535][/doublepost]
maflynn said:
Quite different then what you see with ifixit, isn't it :)

I also didn't like their coy statement of not showing all the steps to disassemble the iMac because its a tear down and not an upgrade video :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is what happens when you want to be first instead of best.

iFixIt takes their time and does teardowns right. Wait on them if you really want to learn how this machine goes together.
 
phobos said:
Yes I’m aware of that. That’s exactly what I said on my post as well.
Just in case you’re not aware RAID0 means that if something goes wrong with one drive you lose both drives.
Click to expand...

You seem to contradict yourself. If you know that any high-performance SSD is using stripe storage, whats the problem? And sure, if one of the storage chips go, you loose the entire package. Despite all this, the SSDs were proven to be rather reliable. There is nothing new that Apple is doing here, its how it worked for years now, they are just switching more of the chips in parallel. Twice of a very low chance is still a very low chance. And in case of a unlikely failure, you have your backups. So nothing really changes from the practical perspective.
 
zorinlynx said:
At least this explains the lack of the memory upgrade door; they probably can't make the door big enough to access full-sized DIMMs.

Still, I feel this machine shouldn't exist, and they should have gone back to a tower form factor Mac Pro like they used to have. Once you're paying $5K for a machine it really should be serviceable and expandable.
[doublepost=1514470535][/doublepost]

This is what happens when you want to be first instead of best.

iFixIt takes their time and does teardowns right. Wait on them if you really want to learn how this machine goes together.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
Yeah, RAID 0 with spinning disks doubles the chance of volume loss because a RAID 0 volume with spinning disks cannot work at all if one of the disks dies.

However, the failure mode of an SSD is completely different and it is much much less likely that the entire SSD module will fail. Therefore, partial data loss is the more likely scenario and the likelihood of that happening scales linearly with SSD size regardless of the modules themselves being striped.

Try to think of the RAID 0 SSD modules as being a wider road which can carry more traffic at a time. Yes you can still get potholes in the road but the number of potholes and the impact of them would be the same if you had made a road that was twice as long but half as wide. With spinning disks it's more like stacking the roads above each other so when one completely fails it blocks all traffic. Not sure if this is a perfect analogy but hopefully it helps a bit. :)
[doublepost=1514471484][/doublepost]
Rob_2811 said:
Couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...
Newsflash - they ARE building a new Mac Pro. There is room in the product line for both the iMac Pro and a Mac Pro.
 
leman said:
Sure, but thats how SSDs have worked in a while now. You have multiple chips that are written in parallel by the controller. Thats also why larger capacity SSDs are usually faster. The reliability is barely an issue here, while added performance is always welcome. Anyway, you are supposed to do backups onto redundant storage anyway, no matter what kind of main storage you run.
Click to expand...

mikeboss said:
bear in mind that every SSD works internally with a similar technology like RAID 0 does.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how SSD's work internally, it doesn't change the fact that the chance of a failure of your entire volume is twice that of a single SSD, which is what I said. SSD's do still fail, and with two physical SSD's in the system, your chance of a complete failure of your volume is twice that of a single SSD.

Also, while SSD's do stripe data across the flash chips, I do believe there is some sort of parity-based data protection (ECC?) that helps prevent catastrophic failure of the entire SSD. Does Apple implement this type of protection on their RAID 0?
 
Last edited:
zorinlynx said:
Still, I feel this machine shouldn't exist, and they should have gone back to a tower form factor Mac Pro like they used to have. Once you're paying $5K for a machine it really should be serviceable and expandable.
Click to expand...
Different form factor to appeal to different customers. iMac Pro users fully understand this machine isn't user serviceable/expandable (s/e). They are willing to "sacrifice" s/e for the AiO convenience coupled with power. The modular Mac Pro is for those who want s/e and power. The fact that they are going to a modular expandable Mac Pro sort of negates your argument.

zorinlynx said:
iFixIt takes their time and does teardowns right. Wait on them if you really want to learn how this machine goes together.
Click to expand...
This is true. iFixit does know their stuff.
 
leman said:
Even if you can find the W-2195 in retail (which is far from being a certain thing), its still going to cost you at least $2500, maybe more.
Click to expand...

In a few years these will hit the 2nd hand market and upgrading a base model with a NOS CPU might be an option, just like it is now with cheesegrater MacPros.
 
dmylrea said:
Regardless of how SSD's work internally, it doesn't change the fact that the chance of a failure of your entire volume is twice that of a single SSD, which is what I said. SSD's do still fail, and with two physical SSD's in the system, your chance of a complete failure of your volume is twice that of a single SSD.

Also, while SSD's do stripe data across the flash chips, I do believe there is some sort of parity-based data protection (ECC?) that helps prevent catastrophic failure of the entire SSD. Does Apple implement this type of protection on their RAID 0?
Click to expand...

I don't agree, the post above you has some good points.
You can't compare spinners with SSD's.
 
I was waiting for the new Mac Pro anyway but reading that the drives are in RAID would definitely make this machine a no go for me. Especially considering the steps I’d have to take to get to the drives should one fail. Hopefully Apple makes it easier to get to the drives in the new Mac Pro.
 
justperry said:
I don't agree, the post above you has some good points.
You can't compare spinners with SSD's.
Click to expand...

Think about it. 2 drives in a RAID 0. Each has it's own electronics (controllers, power regulation, etc.). Either SSD can completely fail. If EITHER SSD fails, you lose the whole volume. Two SSDs = twice the chance of failure. It's basic math.

The post above me talks about how the chips (internally) have some protection against total failure, but that is not the same as how RAID 0 works, which has ZERO protection. It's two different things.
 
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but does anyone get the feeling that this was going to be the new Mac Pro? Just wondering if this was supposed to replace the trash can and the "modular" Mac Pro came out of backlash from the consumer.
 
What I didn't see mention of. Did Apple finally use a standard M.2 interface for the SSD? Given their history. My guess is no they didn't.

leman said:
And what would the point of that be? If you need the 18-core CPU, get it from Apple now. Even if you can find the W-2195 in retail (which is far from being a certain thing), its still going to cost you at least $2500, maybe more. And you most likely won't be able to upgrade to a future gen CPU, since it's going to be a different socket.

The only situation where I see a CPU upgrade useful is if you dramatically misjudged your needs and ordered a config thats not up to the task. Its going to be a rather costly mistake in any case.
Click to expand...

That's the price now. As the Xeon is typically found in servers. Once corporations start dumping their servers. Those formerly top end Xeon sell for a pittance. In for or five years when the iMac Pro is starting to show it's age. You could bump it up to the 18 core for $100 to $200. Getting a few more years out of it.

High end consumer CPU do a better job holding their value. Since many people have an old i3 which can be upgraded to the same gen i7, maxing out the aging computer. While few people have workstations they are interested in upgrading. While the market is flooded with used enterprise hardware.

I think most of the people who will upgrade the iMac Pro are in the second hand market. They'll pick up a four year old iMac Pro, used 18 core Xeon CPU and used 128GB DDR4 ECC RAM. Given the slow progress in the CPU market. In four years that will still likely be a very powerful computer.
 
Surprise surprise. Apple once again giving the finger to professionals with a spec-gimped, non-upgradeable "Pro" product....
 
Would have liked to see them put it together and booted. The easy part is tearing it apart. Would not hesitate to buy if I needed!
 
On a good note, SSD, CPU and ram can be upgraded ....serviced.

Raid 0 - profit move , they will sell the unit as having 1TB SSD , which is more expensive than 2X512 . Geez that is getting greedy, and cunning.
 
dmylrea said:
Think about it. 2 drives in a RAID 0. Each has it's own electronics (controllers, power regulation, etc.). Either SSD can completely fail. If EITHER SSD fails, you lose the whole volume. Two SSDs = twice the chance of failure. It's basic math.

The post above me talks about how the chips (internally) have some protection against total failure, but that is not the same as how RAID 0 works, which has ZERO protection. It's two different things.
Click to expand...

You said

RAID 0 with two drives doubles your chances of a complete volume failure.
Click to expand...

and

Regardless of how SSD's work internally, it doesn't change the fact that the chance of a failure of your entire volume is twice that of a single SSD
Click to expand...

We're taking about SSD's, not the surrounding electronics.
If there are two SSD of the same brand/size/type it's not 50%, it could be anywhere from 0% to 100% but more likely closer to 100%.
Most SSD's have a MTBF of 100.000's if not millions of hours, if the first one goes at lets say 80.000 hours and the other one goes at 100.000 hours (You don't know if it's in a raid) then the change of them breaking down is 80%.
SSD's are far more reliable than Spinners, I am not sure what Apple uses, if they are the MLC or even SLC type it's more likely (much) closer to 100% than 50%.

You wording was also not right, there's a 100% change of them breaking, al things break eventually.
 
dmylrea said:
Think about it. 2 drives in a RAID 0. Each has it's own electronics (controllers, power regulation, etc.). Either SSD can completely fail. If EITHER SSD fails, you lose the whole volume. Two SSDs = twice the chance of failure. It's basic math.
Click to expand...

Yes but I'd be willing to bet that the chance of that happening with an SSD is quite low. Realistically it's not that bad. This comes with 2x 512GB drives. If it had 1x 1TB drive you'd have a single point of failure with double the memory chips anyway. And if something happens you're still out the data. But the performance gains are real. You mitigate with good backups.

I'm running RAID0 in my PC system with spinning disks. The performance gains are great and I've got local and offsite backups so I'm not worried about failure. It's up 24/7 so I'll probably replace the disks as a preventative measure every 2 or so years.
 
Naraxus said:
Surprise surprise. Apple once again giving the finger to professionals with a spec-gimped, non-upgradeable "Pro" product....
Click to expand...

This is not for pros..... just like the 2013 Mac Pro , looks fantastic though, and bragging rights for well off consumers.
 
It's dumb that you need to remove adhesive to open the thing. Would a few screws in the back really be that ugly? Or even a hatch? Given that it has the word "Pro" in the name, and that it's super expensive, it would have been nice to have more user-upgradeable stuff. Oh who am I kidding, the MacBook Pro isn't upgradeable either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top