Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Exactly, for all intents and purposes Fusion acts like an all SSD Mac even with over 2TB of the 3TB capacity full. I had my doubts before i actually used it. :)

I just cant stop gushing over how awesome this machine is. It is flawless might I add. :):cool:
 
Exactly, for all intents and purposes Fusion acts like an all SSD Mac even with over 2TB of the 3TB capacity full. I had my doubts before i actually used it. :)

I think the problem is that your average user has a very poor understanding of how much data he actually frequently uses.

They might look at their hard drive and see that they have 300GB of data and see that the SSD portion of a Fusion drive is "only" 128GB and start hopping up and down and pulling on their hair with nervousness. But the vast majority of those 300GB are likely files that they haven't touched in months or years and it would be irrelevant if they were stored on a hard drive vs. SSD. Even applications are full of files they might never use. Have you ever used the Portuguese localization files in your copy of MacBlah Pro?
 
I think the problem is that your average user has a very poor understanding of how much data he actually frequently uses.

They might look at their hard drive and see that they have 300GB of data and see that the SSD portion of a Fusion drive is "only" 128GB and start hopping up and down and pulling on their hair with nervousness. But the vast majority of those 300GB are likely files that they haven't touched in months or years and it would be irrelevant if they were stored on a hard drive vs. SSD. Even applications are full of files they might never use. Have you ever used the Portuguese localization files in your copy of MacBlah Pro?

Yep and even with files that are used often, only part of that file actually gets used so Fusion stores the small part that gets used on the SSD then the rest on the HDD since its at a block level.
 
It seems my fusion drive has changed as im getting different results in blackmagic after 4 days of usage.

First day of usage results
DiskSpeedTest_old.png

After 4 days of usage
DiskSpeedTest_new.png

The write speed has dropped a bit but the read has improved by a fair margin.
 
Haha can do, but im currently using a workaround to install windows 7 on the 3TB fusion drive ;)

how about ML? I tried to erase the logical merge of the drives via terminal in recovery, but the installer won't start until i fix the the fusion drive!
 
Did you use both commands to delete the logical volume group and the fusion volume itself?

I used the commands in this guide:

http://www.macworld.com/article/2015664/how-to-split-up-a-fusion-drive.html

But in the end it says:

"The late 2012 Macs that shipped with Fusion Drives require a special version of Mountain Lion not yet available anywhere but by Internet Recovery."

And that version won't install until i fix the drive. How did you manage to install ML?
 
I used the commands in this guide:

http://www.macworld.com/article/2015664/how-to-split-up-a-fusion-drive.html

But in the end it says:

"The late 2012 Macs that shipped with Fusion Drives require a special version of Mountain Lion not yet available anywhere but by Internet Recovery."

And that version won't install until i fix the drive. How did you manage to install ML?
The macword guide is wrong, it only deletes the logical group not the actual volume aswell.

You need to use this guide
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/1...ining-doc-ars-tears-open-apples-fusion-drive/

I can help you though it if you like?
 
Last edited:
Love it. Boot time is about 12 seconds, and I've noticed things opening faster as I use them more.

my iMac late 2012 fusion drive start up time is 20 seconds ... hmmmm

how you get 12? .. mine is factory defalut ie i havent put anything on it yet due to noisey cpu fault
 
my iMac late 2012 fusion drive start up time is 20 seconds ... hmmmm

how you get 12? .. mine is factory defalut ie i havent put anything on it yet due to noisey cpu fault

Mine was about 12 the first time that I booted it, but it's actually slowed to abut your 20 seconds now. Luck I guess? I don't really know what to say.
 
I can't understand why it can install to one of the drives from recovery partition but not from internet recovery...

Not sure, that is why i did not restart after i split the fusion drive, i went straight into the installer and installed osx on the ssd. Once i installed OSX i booted into OSX and went into disk utility to partition my HDD so i could get windows 7 working on the 3TB HDD (i could not partition the hdd in the recovery partition as they show up red). I then booted into internet recovery, refused the partitioned HDD and the SSD back together using terminal and then reinstalled OSX on the fusion drive.
 
i ordered the 27 inch with the fd. did alot of research on it too.. i use external drives mostly to store my data and video editing, if you can keep it under the 128 you will never use the hdd and therefore your whole system will be ssd

is that really true??

that was my consideration, but some apple genius told me, that fusion also moves data off the ssd onto the hdd..
can you proove, that all data stay on the ssd, if ur under 120 GB of data??
 
is that really true??

that was my consideration, but some apple genius told me, that fusion also moves data off the ssd onto the hdd..
can you proove, that all data stay on the ssd, if ur under 120 GB of data??

Fusion only moves data to the HDD when it overflows the space on the SSD. There are lots of tests out there that prove it.
 
Fusion only moves data to the HDD when it overflows the space on the SSD. There are lots of tests out there that prove it.

I'm gonna disagree. Yeah I've read the arstechnica and the (useless) anandtech guides but they don't prove data is never moved onto the hard drive if the SSD isn't full. All they prove is that this is the case in the short term. I wouldn't put it past the fusion drive to move stuff off the SSD if it hasn't been accessed in weeks even if its not full.

To test this you'd have to leave your iMac idling for a few weeks with <128Gb data then check again and see if anythings been moved, and I haven't seen this done yet.
 
I'm gonna disagree. Yeah I've read the arstechnica and the (useless) anandtech guides but they don't prove data is never moved onto the hard drive if the SSD isn't full. All they prove is that this is the case in the short term. I wouldn't put it past the fusion drive to move stuff off the SSD if it hasn't been accessed in weeks even if its not full.

To test this you'd have to leave your iMac idling for a few weeks with <128Gb data then check again and see if anythings been moved, and I haven't seen this done yet.


guess this is definately possible, which is just another reason i shelled out the 1300 extra for the ssd so i could stop driving myself crazy with all these retarded what if scenarios
 
I'm gonna disagree. Yeah I've read the arstechnica and the (useless) anandtech guides but they don't prove data is never moved onto the hard drive if the SSD isn't full. All they prove is that this is the case in the short term. I wouldn't put it past the fusion drive to move stuff off the SSD if it hasn't been accessed in weeks even if its not full.

To test this you'd have to leave your iMac idling for a few weeks with <128Gb data then check again and see if anythings been moved, and I haven't seen this done yet.

I suppose anything's possible but what would be the point of that design? Do you think Apple wants to prevent you from accessing your data too fast?
 
Guys

Be aware, running disk benchmarks like that on a system that isn't 100% sad will go some way towards wiping out your hot data (replacing it with the contents of the disk test) - so just use it and enjoy the system unless you think there's an issue :D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.