Recent SSD/HD dual drive upgrade, performance lacking

xmakeafistx

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 22, 2010
23
0
Hi there. I recently installed an Samsung EVO 850 250GB SSD and so far the performance seems to be lacking. I'm using a dual drive setup, with the stock 750gb Toshiba, and the Samsung.

My friend suggested to do a fusion drive kind of setup. I want to check to see if I'm actually using a fusion drive setup, or if I'm just using a core storage volume. I also installed TRIM enabler in order to enable the 3rd party TRIM support. I'm also running FileVault.

Is there any way to check if i'm using fusion drive vs core storage volume? Its been a few days since I've done the clean install, and from what my friend told me, CSV and Fusion Drive both make it so it puts things on the SSD that you use most. Is this true? I guess I'm just trying to get a full understanding of all of this.

I also tried playing Leauge and it ran a hell of a lot more awfully than previous to the install. All of the settings are exact same video wise, I even went down in graphics settings and it was still awful. I doubt this is due to the hard drives, but what could be causing this after a recent fresh install?
 

Weaselboy

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 23, 2005
29,142
8,810
California
If you have a Fusion set up properly, when you look in Disk Utility you will only see one volume.

Run the command below in Terminal and post the output up here and we can tell you also.

Code:
diskutil cs list
Yes, the idea is the OS will move the most frequently accessed data to the flash storage portion of the Fusion setup.
 

xmakeafistx

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 22, 2010
23
0
If you have a Fusion set up properly, when you look in Disk Utility you will only see one volume.

Run the command below in Terminal and post the output up here and we can tell you also.

Code:
diskutil cs list
Yes, the idea is the OS will move the most frequently accessed data to the flash storage portion of the Fusion setup.
CoreStorage logical volume groups (1 found)
|
+-- Logical Volume Group 168C6C41-026F-42C3-A24C-15B33E7249B7
=========================================================
Name: GROUP
Status: Online
Size: 999527776256 B (999.5 GB)
Free Space: 5496979456 B (5.5 GB)
|
+-< Physical Volume A6B9969A-93A0-48B0-B140-7B9899750BF3
| ----------------------------------------------------
| Index: 0
| Disk: disk1s2
| Status: Online
| Size: 749812400128 B (749.8 GB)
|
+-< Physical Volume 361887C5-B88D-4ADE-82F2-8873B3D5900C
| ----------------------------------------------------
| Index: 1
| Disk: disk0s2
| Status: Online
| Size: 249715376128 B (249.7 GB)
|
+-> Logical Volume Family 08B37ABD-57E5-439D-A1C9-FEBEEF3D2E41
----------------------------------------------------------
Encryption Status: Unlocked
Encryption Type: AES-XTS
Conversion Status: Complete
Conversion Direction: -none-
Has Encrypted Extents: Yes
Fully Secure: Yes
Passphrase Required: Yes
|
+-> Logical Volume A14A182A-0FB9-4FDD-8EA4-8AD38623B437
---------------------------------------------------
Disk: disk2
Status: Online
Size (Total): 993410023424 B (993.4 GB)
Conversion Progress: Complete
Revertible: No
LV Name: CSVolume
Volume Name: CSVolume
Content Hint: Apple_HFS


This is the output I received.
 

scrmtrey

macrumors regular
Mar 28, 2013
218
15
Just go without fusion drive. SSD for OSx, apps, iPhoto, iTunes library... And the hdd for data storage.
 

xmakeafistx

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 22, 2010
23
0
what are the benefits to these two alternative options? The fusion drive vs using SSD for startup and other things then using the HDD as extra storage.

Thanks for the help guys. I was just reading somewhere that there is a difference between using a core storage volume/using fusion drive, nice to have this cleared up.
 

Weaselboy

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 23, 2005
29,142
8,810
California
what are the benefits to these two alternative options? The fusion drive vs using SSD for startup and other things then using the HDD as extra storage.
It would be you deciding what goes on the SSD vs. the OS deciding what goes on the SSD based on usage. Hypothetically, frequently used apps and data would get put in the SSD section and be just as fast as if you had them on the SSD without Fusion.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,494
26
Singapore
To be fair, you really can't expect gaming performance to dramatically increase with the inclusion of an SSD. Why don't you try some tests that are more disk-orientated, if you're that concerned about it?..
 

xmakeafistx

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 22, 2010
23
0
To be fair, you really can't expect gaming performance to dramatically increase with the inclusion of an SSD. Why don't you try some tests that are more disk-orientated, if you're that concerned about it?..
I don't expect any kind of gaming performance out of an SSD upgrade, I just expected it to at least run the same as it did before the upgrade. I guess thats kinda what loses me.

What testing software would you suggest for testing the drives? Is there any kind of software that could help me give you guys a more accurate look at whats going on with my macbook?
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,494
26
Singapore
I don't expect any kind of gaming performance out of an SSD upgrade, I just expected it to at least run the same as it did before the upgrade. I guess thats kinda what loses me.
Fair point! I am not sure why the graphics card performance has seemed to drop - but it's hard without actually comparing the before and after..

What testing software would you suggest for testing the drives? Is there any kind of software that could help me give you guys a more accurate look at whats going on with my macbook?
A few options I guess..
AJA System Test
QuickBench

Worth a shot, but we roughly already know what the numbers will be.
 

simonsi

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2014
4,849
716
Auckland
what are the benefits to these two alternative options? The fusion drive vs using SSD for startup and other things then using the HDD as extra storage.
Realistically I only see downside from a Fusion setup. If you manually choose OSX and Apps for the SSD (I also have my Dropbox folder), and all media etc on the HDD then the OS is unlikely to be able to achieve any real benefit from moving files to the SSD portion of the Fusion. Realistically media doesn't play any better off a faster SSD than a fast-enough HDD. I run a 600GB Aperture library on my HDD and it still opens plenty fast enough.

The downside is the Fusion drive will completely fail if either the SSD or HDD fails, because the data is across both volumes you will have an unbootable system until the failing drive (you have to work out which one), is replaced and the full Fusion volume rebuilt.

Compare with I can boot of either drive if needed (I have a small bootable partition on the HDD), easy to work out which has failed and I can order a new one online by booting off the other drive...
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,494
26
Singapore
Realistically I only see downside from a Fusion setup. If you manually choose OSX and Apps for the SSD (I also have my Dropbox folder), and all media etc on the HDD then the OS is unlikely to be able to achieve any real benefit from moving files to the SSD portion of the Fusion. Realistically media doesn't play any better off a faster SSD than a fast-enough HDD. I run a 600GB Aperture library on my HDD and it still opens plenty fast enough.
I have opted for something quite similar to this in my work PC setup, fast SSD for boot/apps, smaller SSD for cloud storage (OwnCloud), then mechanical HDD for storage of the rest of the larger, non speed-reliant items.

The downside is the Fusion drive will completely fail if either the SSD or HDD fails, because the data is across both volumes you will have an unbootable system until the failing drive (you have to work out which one), is replaced and the full Fusion volume rebuilt.
I don't necessarily see this as a downside really. It certainly has advantages in that (usually) the majority of the files you access will respond in an SSD-like manner. I've no issues with that, but I personally don't use it.
 

simonsi

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2014
4,849
716
Auckland
the majority of the files you access will respond in an SSD-like manner. I've no issues with that, but I personally don't use it.
That is also true in a manual setup.

The failure of the Fusion drive if either underlying drive fails is only downside however, there is no upside to that inherent reality.
 

xmakeafistx

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 22, 2010
23
0
That is also true in a manual setup.

The failure of the Fusion drive if either underlying drive fails is only downside however, there is no upside to that inherent reality.
Very good points. I honestly feel dumb for not thinking of it that way before. Agh. I really don't want to go through the stress of doing a fresh install again. I would like the idea of being more in control of things too. I hate everything being up in the air and in the hands of the OS.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,494
26
Singapore
That is also true in a manual setup.

The failure of the Fusion drive if either underlying drive fails is only downside however, there is no upside to that inherent reality.
Sure, no problem. But keep in mind that a very large portion of people wouldn't be able to contemplate or interact with multiple drives and whatnot. Consumers eh ;)
 

simonsi

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2014
4,849
716
Auckland
Sure, no problem. But keep in mind that a very large portion of people wouldn't be able to contemplate or interact with multiple drives and whatnot.
Then hopefully they wouldn't be able to create a fusion drive in the first place :cool:
 

simonsi

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2014
4,849
716
Auckland
A lot of Macs these days come with them :(:confused:
Ah - The Fusion drive we are talking about here is setup in OS X out of a discrete SSD drive and a separate HDD drive, not a single manufactured drive containing Flash memory and a spinning disk - you can't easily separate those elements (if at all), back to a usable SSD and HDD volumes.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,494
26
Singapore
Ah - The Fusion drive we are talking about here is setup in OS X out of a discrete SSD drive and a separate HDD drive, not a single manufactured drive containing Flash memory and a spinning disk - you can't easily separate those elements (if at all), back to a usable SSD and HDD volumes.
I was not referring to those infernal mechanical drives + SSD cache. Those are horrible excuses for storage.

If you buy an iMac, it is advertised as "Fusion Drive". This means it comes prepackaged formatted with SSD + mechanical HDD. That is what I was making reference to :)
 

simonsi

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2014
4,849
716
Auckland
I was not referring to those infernal mechanical drives + SSD cache. Those are horrible excuses for storage.

If you buy an iMac, it is advertised as "Fusion Drive". This means it comes prepackaged formatted with SSD + mechanical HDD. That is what I was making reference to :)
Ah - in that case those happy users will be in blissful ignorance until either drive fails, then it maybe won't even be clear which drive needs replacing...this is the MBP forum so was happily working on the assumption that any user who had a fusion option had to be aware of the second drive...having put it there :D
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,494
26
Singapore
Ah - in that case those happy users will be in blissful ignorance until either drive fails, then it maybe won't even be clear which drive needs replacing...this is the MBP forum so was happily working on the assumption that any user who had a fusion option had to be aware of the second drive...having put it there :D
Fair point, this is true. I don't pay attention to the posting locations these days ;)

Anyway I'm sure things will calm down for the OP.

Nice to meet you BTW.