Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

toke lahti

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 23, 2007
3,303
518
Helsinki, Finland
I recently tinkered with making bootable Ventura install in external ssd & hdd.

When I noticed that current "diskutil apfs createContainer" command wants that the "Main, "Faster" Disk Use" (in diskutil apfs list) needs to be smaller than "Secondary, Designated Aux Use" (in diskutil apfs list).

Can anybody explain why is this?
I was thinking about getting 2TB of fast ssd and add some room with existing 1TB hdd, but seems to be that it is not possible.
Maybe this limitation has always existed?
Or has "faster side" off Fusion turned to be more cache like and Apple wants to store all that fits to "faster side".
Maybe I instead buy a half or 1 TB very fast ssd and 2 ot 4 TB very slow ssd...

Has there been any APFS lessons in WWDC about this Fusion Drive feature in years?
Or any other "public" developer material?
 
With how cheap SSDs are these days and this being decade+ after Fusion Drive was released I'd go full on SATA or NVMe SSD.

Also historically Fusion Drive's SSD did not exceed 128GB and actually shrank to 24GB in later launches.

If it meant cheaper BoM I'd have wanted an all SSD Fusion Drive that is made up of fast SSD (1TB) + slow SSD (10TB).
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes
Or has "faster side" off Fusion turned to be more cache like and Apple wants to store all that fits to "faster side".
Not a really a cache.
Cache: Small fast disk is a copy of parts of larger slower disk. All data always resides on slow. Active data on fast as well.
Fusion: Moves data between fast and slow, maintaining active data on fast. Data will be on one disk, never on both.
I was thinking about getting 2TB of fast ssd and add some room with existing 1TB hdd
In that case I would keep them separate and manually keep little used data on the HDD.
Maybe I instead buy a half or 1 TB very fast ssd and 2 ot 4 TB very slow ssd...
That would more in keeping with design purpose of Fusion.
It is still most efficient way to get fast AND big storage in a affordable way.
I agree if you need/want to see all storage as a single drive. But in many cases it is simpler to just put less demanding data on a second slower SSD or HDD.
 
Last edited:
Not a really a cache.
Cache: Small fast disk is a copy of parts of larger slower disk. All data always resides on slow. Active data on fast as well.
Fusion: Moves data between fast and slow, maintaining active data on fast. Data will be on one disk, never on both.

In that case I would keep them separate and manually keep little used data on the HDD.

That would more in keeping with design purpose of Fusion.

I agree if you need/want to see all storage as a single drive. But in many cases it is simpler to just put less demanding data on a second slower SSD or HDD.
I just find it way more simplier to let the computer decide, which files need speed.
Is this the only tb-dual-m2-ssd-case?
And has not been available since February?
 
Is this the only tb-dual-m2-ssd-case?
And has not been available since February?

Trebleet has a self-powered thunderbolt dual NVME case, AND it has a downstream thunderbolt port for daisy-chaining TB devices, a feature I like.

https://www.trebleet.com/product-page/thunderbolt-3-two-slot-m-2-nvme-ssd-storage
It used to be listed on US Amazon site for a lower price, but no more. It appears you can order it directly from Trebleet, though it is expensive that way.

I've got a 2015 iMac with TB 2 ports, but hope to get a new Apple Si machine at some point. I had been interested in these TB3 enclosures because they use a separate power source (i.e., not bus-powered). Thus they would work with an Apple Thunderbolt 2 to Thunderbolt 3 adapter to connect to my current iMac, and when I upgrade my machine they would get the better TB3 throughput.

I just find it way more simplier to let the computer decide, which files need speed.
I agree. I think Fusion drives can still be very useful if the "fast" SSD part is of good size (say, 25% or more of the total storage size). I ran for several years with El Capitan (I think it was?) booting from a do-it-yourself (CoreStorage) Fusion drive I set up with a 500GB SSD and a 2TB HDD. It was wonderful -- fast and perfectly reliable. And it was so nice not to have to "manually" separate my files between internal SSD and external HDD. No wasted space. Just a normal home directory and Fusion sorted out the most efficient layout. Sadly, the macOS upgrade to Mojave refused to upgrade that fusion setup. (I should mention all my DIY Fusion drives have been either internal devices or external via Thunderbolt interfaces.)

My 2012 Mac mini is still running High Sierra (24 hrs a day) booted from a similar DIY CoreStorage Fusion drive. Again, perfectly performant and reliable for many years.

As for APFS Fusion drives, I have not much experience. I did set up an experimental one (1TB SSD and 1TB HDD) and it appeared to work perfectly. However I needed the components for other uses and dismantled it. I have been meaning to get back to those experiments...

It seems that so many people disparage and "bad talk" Fusion drives without any real knowledge or experience. Most seem to be just repeating FUD they imagine or heard somewhere. Sure, maybe 64TB (or whatever Apple put in the later Fusion drives) wasn't that great, but make the SSD 500 GB or 1 TB (or bigger) and it really transforms!

IMHO, Apple did a great job implementing a real tiered storage system (wikipedia) in macOS.

I do not agree with people who say "Fusion is bad because you have both SSD and HDD and there is twice the chance the storage system could fail." Well, one must have backups even if you use a single SSD, right, because it could fail? However, such a failure is a rare event. So, with the two devices in a Fusion drive there is a very small higher chance you'd need to use your backup. Not a big deal. Very acceptable for the benefits in certain use cases.

I'm not saying everyone should be using Fusion drives. But IMHO if you want a large amount of storage that rapidly responds to usage patterns to feel like an SSD, and you don't want to manage your files across multiple volumes, a DIY Fusion drive is worth considering.

(OK, off my soapbox finally!)
 
Fusion was a way of Apple improving performance when SSD were new and expensive.

commonly used information held on the SSD part with less commonly used kept on the bulk storage HDD. As such makes sense that the Fast part would be the smaller and stops anyone rebuilding it putting them in the wrong way round ie HDD as the fast drive for common files Including OS.

APFS really designed though for SSD and Apple dropped Fusion Drives as SSD came down in price, apart from 21.5” entry iMac so as far as Apple concerned then is dead.

21.5” iMac 2020 was last model available with Fusion and Sonoma supports 2019 iMac including this.

once that drops off OS support then Apple probably drop the fusion commands out. However probably occur with Intel being dropped from OS support,

don’t know if ASi Macs have Fusion support. I suspect not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes
21.5” iMac 2020 was last model available with Fusion and Sonoma supports 2019 iMac including this.

once that drops off OS support then Apple probably drop the fusion commands out. However probably occur with Intel being dropped from OS support,

don’t know if ASi Macs have Fusion support. I suspect not.
Can you explain why Apple ported Fusion to APFS and has even developed it further?
Fusion in hfs+ did not support external drives. In apfs it does.

They could have dropped Fusion like they dropped ZFS.

I can't think of any reason why Fusion wouldn't with ASi macs.
Filesystems are not (or at least should not be) dependant on the cpu.
 
the part you quoted tells you that (or should do if you think about i)

iMac 2020 21.5” shipped with Fusion Drives and is still supported with Ventura and will be supported with Sonoma.

So explain to me HOW Apple could drop Fusion support when they are supporting Fusion equipped Macs even today’s Ventura and plan to support with Sonoma?

Somoma on Intel HAS to support Fusion still as they are supporting models that shipped with Fusion Drives.

so unless Apple wanted to continue to ship Fusion equipped Macs in with HFS+ rather then APFS then had to add Fusion for APFS which is why ported across.

Fusion was Apples solution of bridging the high cost of early SSD whilst boosting performance. SSD now fallen substantially in price and Apple ships all SSD now, so Apple has no need of Fusion once the last Intel models that shipped drop off support.

if you want a reason why not on ASi models then think about it.
fusion costs support/development costs and Apple would have no models supported with it.

The reason for Fusion is no longer there either.
 
the part you quoted tells you that (or should do if you think about i)

iMac 2020 21.5” shipped with Fusion Drives and is still supported with Ventura and will be supported with Sonoma.

So explain to me HOW Apple could drop Fusion support when they are supporting Fusion equipped Macs even today’s Ventura and plan to support with Sonoma?

Somoma on Intel HAS to support Fusion still as they are supporting models that shipped with Fusion Drives.

so unless Apple wanted to continue to ship Fusion equipped Macs in with HFS+ rather then APFS then had to add Fusion for APFS which is why ported across.

Fusion was Apples solution of bridging the high cost of early SSD whilst boosting performance. SSD now fallen substantially in price and Apple ships all SSD now, so Apple has no need of Fusion once the last Intel models that shipped drop off support.

if you want a reason why not on ASi models then think about it.
fusion costs support/development costs and Apple would have no models supported with it.

The reason for Fusion is no longer there either.
Apple could have easily keep supporting macOS to be installed to hfs+.

Again, this in not about cpu, this is about filesystem compability to an OS. If apfs is compatible with appleSI and apfs is compatible with Fusion drives, then Fusion drive should be compatible with appleSI.

Once there is support in filesystem, there is no support costs to new models, just supporting the filesystem.

Your mileage might vary,
but I personally would love to buy a (desktop) mac with hyper expensive apple ssd PLUS user upgradeable "for the rest of us"-slow STANDARD ssd.
And then you could choose to Fusion them or not.
Price saving: $0-$2000.

I can test my external FD setup with my 14"mbp later next week, if you like.
 
Apple could have easily keep supporting macOS to be installed to hfs+.

Again, this in not about cpu, this is about filesystem compability to an OS. If apfs is compatible with appleSI and apfs is compatible with Fusion drives, then Fusion drive should be compatible with appleSI.

Once there is support in filesystem, there is no support costs to new models, just supporting the filesystem.

Your mileage might vary,
but I personally would love to buy a (desktop) mac with hyper expensive apple ssd PLUS user upgradeable "for the rest of us"-slow STANDARD ssd.
And then you could choose to Fusion them or not.
Price saving: $0-$2000.

I can test my external FD setup with my 14"mbp later next week, if you like.
Don't know why you keep bring up this is not about CPU. Never said it was about the CPU.

Fusion was a solution by Apple FOR Apple to get faster storage when SSD expensive whereas it is now Mainstream.

SSD are now mainstream storage however Apple continued to ship Fusion on the entry iMac so have had to continue to support it until those models drop from support. Which will be most likely when Intel support dropped as the last shipping iMacs on Intel still shipped some Fusion models and so Apple have no Fusion equipped models to support once Intel all dropped. iMac 2020 shipped with Fusion and was last Intel iMac model.

Nothing to do with the CPU but simply that there will no longer be Apple Computers that SHIPPED with Fusion to support once Intel Mac's dropped from Support. It just happens to coincide here.

Apple has never shipped a Fusion equipped ASi Mac as there is no problem for as such for Apple with the cost of SSD like there was when they started shipping Fusion systems.

Apple dropped all Nvidia Support with Mojave as they wanted people to focus on using Metal API whereas Nvidia drivers would have added CUDA support as well. Nvidia had drivers ready to go and Beta versions had Nvidia support so clearly nothing Technical stopping it but Apple dropped it and they dropped support for all of the Mac that shipped with an Nvidia Card.

In terms of shipping with two different File Systems depending upon model, when Apple extolled the virtues of APFS over HFS but we are going to ship yours on HFS is going to raise the question of if APFS is so much better then why are you shipping this with HFS? What benefit FOR Apple is there in shipping different models on different File Systems. As you said there is still a cost for supporting the additional file system, and this is going to lead to calls from people.

Far easier to simply ship APFS for everything for Apple. Apple all about trying to present the same to the outside so doesn't make sense to use different parts. Same with the GPU then Apple wanted to present as Metal not this is an AMD GPU and this is an Nvidia GPU.

In terms of development then it is not that APFS is compatible with ASi more that Apple when developing the Mac OS for ASi would have written drivers to work with APFS volumes. You then have to code all of the features and commands that you require. So simply adding into Mac OS on ASi the ability to use APFS volumes does not inherently add all of the commands to Mac OS to create Fusion Drives. Apple would have had to develop putting those commands into the Mac OS on ASi.

Mac OS can READ NTFS but doesn't WRITE to it without 3rd Party tool so whilst clearly nothing stopping Mac OS from writing to NTFS in itself other then Apple didn't code for it whereas 3rd Parties have.

Apple has no NEED to support FUSION in ASi Mac OS as they never shipped an ASi with Fusion.

Sorry but I really cannot explain it simpler then this for you.

You asked questions and people tried to answer them for you
 
Don't know why you keep bring up this is not about CPU. Never said it was about the CPU.

Apple has no NEED to support FUSION in ASi Mac OS as they never shipped an ASi with Fusion.

Sorry but I really cannot explain it simpler then this for you.

You asked questions and people tried to answer them for you
Well, you don't seem to get it.
I'll try once more.

Fusion Drive is a feature of a filesystem, not a feature of an operating system or cpu or soc.

Filesystems tends to be identical in different systems, for obvious reasons.

The logic goes: if a filesystem in intel-mac is the same than filesystem in a as-mac, and one of them supports Fusion Drive, then will also the other.

I took the time and connected my "fully external fusion drive test" to my 14"mbp.
Check what is below and ask, if you don't get it?

To conclude:
Yes, Apple does not need Fusion in as-macs.
But Apple needs to have same APFS in as-macs than in intel-macs.
And you can guess the third line here.

Apple's last Fusion Drive mac was introduced in 2020, and still sold as new in March 2022.
If there is usual 7 year support, then macOS released in 2028 or 2029 will be supported with "last Fusion mac".

Which means that first macOS with new APFS version, that do NOT to support Fusion Drive CAN be introduced in 2029 or 2030.
That said, filesystems tend to be fully backwards compatible, again for obvious reasons.
But of course Apple can do whatever they want with their close sourced filesystem.
They might just tweak it so, that you can still read/write to Fusion Drive, but you cannot create them.
Then again, you could boot to older OS or run it as virtual machine.

I guess that Apple could have made APFS without Fusion Drive and then just kept supporting booting newer OSses from HFS+. Butthey chose to support Fusion Drive. Maybe it was easier or just maybe, someones at Apple's filesystem department still thinks about long term evolution is more important than short term profits.

I wish that Apple would bring Fusion ssd's to macs. Where you could have that super fast soldered ssd as the faster part of Fusion and then uprgadeable standard ssd for the slower part. Most of what fills the ssd's in people's macs do not need speed.

Code:
toke-mbp@TokesM1roitsPRO ~ % diskutil apfs list
APFS Containers (4 found)
|
+-- Container disk3 8635CA58-DD6F-4C3A-88DF-CB7FA2E76A87
|   ====================================================
|   APFS Container Reference:     disk3
|   Size (Capacity Ceiling):      494384795648 B (494.4 GB)
|   Capacity In Use By Volumes:   256275697664 B (256.3 GB) (51.8% used)
|   Capacity Not Allocated:       238109097984 B (238.1 GB) (48.2% free)
|   |
|   +-< Physical Store disk0s2 30F1522E-53C9-49F0-82CF-E78652AE7058
|   |   -----------------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Physical Store Disk:   disk0s2
|   |   Size:                       494384795648 B (494.4 GB)
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s1 7BE1E26F-1FE6-442B-A9AE-572F841F2958
|   |   ---------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s1 (System)
|   |   Name:                      Macintosh HD (Case-insensitive)
|   |   Mount Point:               /System/Volumes/Update/mnt1
|   |   Capacity Consumed:         22096134144 B (22.1 GB)
|   |   Sealed:                    Broken
|   |   FileVault:                 No (Encrypted at rest)
|   |   |
|   |   Snapshot:                  699EDCA1-FF46-46A6-A5CF-0135EFBB88A4
|   |   Snapshot Disk:             disk3s1s1
|   |   Snapshot Mount Point:      /
|   |   Snapshot Sealed:           Yes
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s2 41A49895-019A-4E12-B059-3DBD1ABFA2BA
|   |   ---------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s2 (Preboot)
|   |   Name:                      Preboot (Case-insensitive)
|   |   Mount Point:               /System/Volumes/Preboot
|   |   Capacity Consumed:         1158619136 B (1.2 GB)
|   |   Sealed:                    No
|   |   FileVault:                 No
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s3 D8F5FD5F-28B7-4235-9E5F-A78CE9E75F15
|   |   ---------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s3 (Recovery)
|   |   Name:                      Recovery (Case-insensitive)
|   |   Mount Point:               Not Mounted
|   |   Capacity Consumed:         1644675072 B (1.6 GB)
|   |   Sealed:                    No
|   |   FileVault:                 No
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s5 68811CE0-1174-4EB3-98A2-E233EED38B30
|   |   ---------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s5 (Data)
|   |   Name:                      Data (Case-insensitive)
|   |   Mount Point:               /System/Volumes/Data
|   |   Capacity Consumed:         230538952704 B (230.5 GB)
|   |   Sealed:                    No
|   |   FileVault:                 No (Encrypted at rest)
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s6 D62AF045-BE6E-47AE-8452-8924053535BA
|       ---------------------------------------------------
|       APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s6 (VM)
|       Name:                      VM (Case-insensitive)
|       Mount Point:               /System/Volumes/VM
|       Capacity Consumed:         20480 B (20.5 KB)
|       Sealed:                    No
|       FileVault:                 No
|
+-- Container disk6 3EAE78D3-EDF9-4BD9-B819-86691F8FD5BC
    ====================================================
    APFS Container Reference:     disk6 (Fusion)
    Size (Capacity Ceiling):      979792330752 B (979.8 GB)
    Capacity In Use By Volumes:   26244804608 B (26.2 GB) (2.7% used)
    Capacity Not Allocated:       953547526144 B (953.5 GB) (97.3% free)
    |
    +-< Physical Store disk4s2 982A7E7D-CF71-4ACD-8BA5-A799513C2493
    |   -----------------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Physical Store Disk:   disk4s2 (Main, "Faster" Disk Use)
    |   Size:                       479894224896 B (479.9 GB)
    |
    +-< Physical Store disk5s2 6021F9EC-43B5-4F10-82AD-75676D095B02
    |   -----------------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Physical Store Disk:   disk5s2 (Secondary, Designated Aux Use)
    |   Size:                       499898105856 B (499.9 GB)
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s1 A0C8EE21-58E8-4456-8A4B-A4D5C3DBC123
    |   ---------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s1 (Data)
    |   Name:                      testFusion - Data (Case-insensitive)
    |   Mount Point:               /Volumes/testFusion - Data
    |   Capacity Consumed:         5356662784 B (5.4 GB)
    |   Sealed:                    No
    |   FileVault:                 No
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s3 16066CCC-B3F5-4B3E-8554-C9443FCFFC0C
    |   ---------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s3 (System)
    |   Name:                      testFusion (Case-insensitive)
    |   Mount Point:               /Volumes/testFusion
    |   Capacity Consumed:         9059868672 B (9.1 GB)
    |   Sealed:                    Yes
    |   FileVault:                 No
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s4 859E8AC1-618A-49BB-9490-7DFCBF141D84
    |   ---------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s4 (Preboot)
    |   Name:                      Preboot (Case-insensitive)
    |   Mount Point:               Not Mounted
    |   Capacity Consumed:         1869967360 B (1.9 GB)
    |   Sealed:                    No
    |   FileVault:                 No
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s5 1562F11B-FAA7-42D9-A369-81838188F7EA
    |   ---------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s5 (Recovery)
    |   Name:                      Recovery (Case-insensitive)
    |   Mount Point:               Not Mounted
    |   Capacity Consumed:         1146298368 B (1.1 GB)
    |   Sealed:                    No
    |   FileVault:                 No
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s6 35A75AF0-7084-46AC-925E-0D3AA5DD762F
        ---------------------------------------------------
        APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s6 (VM)
        Name:                      VM (Case-insensitive)
        Mount Point:               Not Mounted
        Capacity Consumed:         20480 B (20.5 KB)
        Sealed:                    No
        FileVault:                 No
toke-mbp@TokesM1roitsPRO ~ %
 
Last edited:
Well, you don't seem to get it.
I'll try once more.

Fusion Drive is a feature of a filesystem, not a feature of an operating system or cpu or soc.

Filesystems tends to be identical in different systems, for obvious reasons.

The logic goes: if a filesystem in intel-mac is the same than filesystem in a as-mac, and one of them supports Fusion Drive, then will also the other.

I took the time and connected my "fully external fusion drive test" to my 14"mbp.
Check what is below and ask, if you don't get it?

To conclude:
Yes, Apple does not need Fusion in as-macs.
But Apple needs to have same APFS in as-macs than in intel-macs.
And you can guess the third line here.

Apple's last Fusion Drive mac was introduced in 2020, and still sold as new in March 2022.
If there is usual 7 year support, then macOS released in 2028 or 2029 will be supported with "last Fusion mac".

Which means that first macOS with new APFS version, that do NOT to support Fusion Drive CAN be introduced in 2029 or 2030.
That said, filesystems tend to be fully backwards compatible, again for obvious reasons.
But of course Apple can do whatever they want with their close sourced filesystem.
They might just tweak it so, that you can still read/write to Fusion Drive, but you cannot create them.
Then again, you could boot to older OS or run it as virtual machine.

I guess that Apple could have made APFS without Fusion Drive and then just kept supporting booting newer OSses from HFS+. Butthey chose to support Fusion Drive. Maybe it was easier or just maybe, someones at Apple's filesystem department still thinks about long term evolution is more important than short term profits.

I wish that Apple would bring Fusion ssd's to macs. Where you could have that super fast soldered ssd as the faster part of Fusion and then uprgadeable standard ssd for the slower part. Most of what fills the ssd's in people's macs do not need speed.

Code:
toke-mbp@TokesM1roitsPRO ~ % diskutil apfs list
APFS Containers (4 found)
|
+-- Container disk3 8635CA58-DD6F-4C3A-88DF-CB7FA2E76A87
|   ====================================================
|   APFS Container Reference:     disk3
|   Size (Capacity Ceiling):      494384795648 B (494.4 GB)
|   Capacity In Use By Volumes:   256275697664 B (256.3 GB) (51.8% used)
|   Capacity Not Allocated:       238109097984 B (238.1 GB) (48.2% free)
|   |
|   +-< Physical Store disk0s2 30F1522E-53C9-49F0-82CF-E78652AE7058
|   |   -----------------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Physical Store Disk:   disk0s2
|   |   Size:                       494384795648 B (494.4 GB)
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s1 7BE1E26F-1FE6-442B-A9AE-572F841F2958
|   |   ---------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s1 (System)
|   |   Name:                      Macintosh HD (Case-insensitive)
|   |   Mount Point:               /System/Volumes/Update/mnt1
|   |   Capacity Consumed:         22096134144 B (22.1 GB)
|   |   Sealed:                    Broken
|   |   FileVault:                 No (Encrypted at rest)
|   |   |
|   |   Snapshot:                  699EDCA1-FF46-46A6-A5CF-0135EFBB88A4
|   |   Snapshot Disk:             disk3s1s1
|   |   Snapshot Mount Point:      /
|   |   Snapshot Sealed:           Yes
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s2 41A49895-019A-4E12-B059-3DBD1ABFA2BA
|   |   ---------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s2 (Preboot)
|   |   Name:                      Preboot (Case-insensitive)
|   |   Mount Point:               /System/Volumes/Preboot
|   |   Capacity Consumed:         1158619136 B (1.2 GB)
|   |   Sealed:                    No
|   |   FileVault:                 No
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s3 D8F5FD5F-28B7-4235-9E5F-A78CE9E75F15
|   |   ---------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s3 (Recovery)
|   |   Name:                      Recovery (Case-insensitive)
|   |   Mount Point:               Not Mounted
|   |   Capacity Consumed:         1644675072 B (1.6 GB)
|   |   Sealed:                    No
|   |   FileVault:                 No
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s5 68811CE0-1174-4EB3-98A2-E233EED38B30
|   |   ---------------------------------------------------
|   |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s5 (Data)
|   |   Name:                      Data (Case-insensitive)
|   |   Mount Point:               /System/Volumes/Data
|   |   Capacity Consumed:         230538952704 B (230.5 GB)
|   |   Sealed:                    No
|   |   FileVault:                 No (Encrypted at rest)
|   |
|   +-> Volume disk3s6 D62AF045-BE6E-47AE-8452-8924053535BA
|       ---------------------------------------------------
|       APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk3s6 (VM)
|       Name:                      VM (Case-insensitive)
|       Mount Point:               /System/Volumes/VM
|       Capacity Consumed:         20480 B (20.5 KB)
|       Sealed:                    No
|       FileVault:                 No
|
+-- Container disk6 3EAE78D3-EDF9-4BD9-B819-86691F8FD5BC
    ====================================================
    APFS Container Reference:     disk6 (Fusion)
    Size (Capacity Ceiling):      979792330752 B (979.8 GB)
    Capacity In Use By Volumes:   26244804608 B (26.2 GB) (2.7% used)
    Capacity Not Allocated:       953547526144 B (953.5 GB) (97.3% free)
    |
    +-< Physical Store disk4s2 982A7E7D-CF71-4ACD-8BA5-A799513C2493
    |   -----------------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Physical Store Disk:   disk4s2 (Main, "Faster" Disk Use)
    |   Size:                       479894224896 B (479.9 GB)
    |
    +-< Physical Store disk5s2 6021F9EC-43B5-4F10-82AD-75676D095B02
    |   -----------------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Physical Store Disk:   disk5s2 (Secondary, Designated Aux Use)
    |   Size:                       499898105856 B (499.9 GB)
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s1 A0C8EE21-58E8-4456-8A4B-A4D5C3DBC123
    |   ---------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s1 (Data)
    |   Name:                      testFusion - Data (Case-insensitive)
    |   Mount Point:               /Volumes/testFusion - Data
    |   Capacity Consumed:         5356662784 B (5.4 GB)
    |   Sealed:                    No
    |   FileVault:                 No
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s3 16066CCC-B3F5-4B3E-8554-C9443FCFFC0C
    |   ---------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s3 (System)
    |   Name:                      testFusion (Case-insensitive)
    |   Mount Point:               /Volumes/testFusion
    |   Capacity Consumed:         9059868672 B (9.1 GB)
    |   Sealed:                    Yes
    |   FileVault:                 No
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s4 859E8AC1-618A-49BB-9490-7DFCBF141D84
    |   ---------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s4 (Preboot)
    |   Name:                      Preboot (Case-insensitive)
    |   Mount Point:               Not Mounted
    |   Capacity Consumed:         1869967360 B (1.9 GB)
    |   Sealed:                    No
    |   FileVault:                 No
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s5 1562F11B-FAA7-42D9-A369-81838188F7EA
    |   ---------------------------------------------------
    |   APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s5 (Recovery)
    |   Name:                      Recovery (Case-insensitive)
    |   Mount Point:               Not Mounted
    |   Capacity Consumed:         1146298368 B (1.1 GB)
    |   Sealed:                    No
    |   FileVault:                 No
    |
    +-> Volume disk6s6 35A75AF0-7084-46AC-925E-0D3AA5DD762F
        ---------------------------------------------------
        APFS Volume Disk (Role):   disk6s6 (VM)
        Name:                      VM (Case-insensitive)
        Mount Point:               Not Mounted
        Capacity Consumed:         20480 B (20.5 KB)
        Sealed:                    No
        FileVault:                 No
toke-mbp@TokesM1roitsPRO ~ %
Then how do you explain that a Mac can READ NTFS but cannot WRITE to NTFS without additional software being installed. By your logic then should be able to WRITE to NTFS as well.

or could it be that you still have to actually IMPLEMENT features still! Ie Apple would need to implement WRITING to NTFS as well as READ.

clearly NTFS has different features on a Mac compared to Windows Implementations in what can do with an NTFS file system.

Ubuntu can READ and WRITE to NTFS without 3rd party software however cannot repair NTFS if have issues and struggles to mount. You need to attach to a Windows PC and then repair then remount on Ununtu.

So clearly NTFS drivers or kernel modules on Ununtu is implemented differently to a Mac OS or Windows machine.
However is possibly to multi boot all 3 of those OS off the same set of hardware, so have the exact same hardware, with exact same externally formatted NTFS disk but you get different experience depending upon the OS that the machine running at the time due to the fact that the OS still have to have something coded and loaded to communicate with the NTFS volume.

simply Using APFS with ASi Mac does not mean will have all of the feature of APFS on Intel Mac UNLESS Apple IMPLEMENT Fusion support for APFS on ASi Mac.

As I stated then Apple has NO NEED to implement Fusion Support in APFS on ASi Mac as there are no ASi Mac that shipped it.
Why would Apple spend time implementing in APFS on ASi, something that they have no intention of using.

So APFS as implemented on ASi does not have to have all of the same features as APFS on Intel. It is clearly dependent upon what is implemented as to what can do with an APFS volume.

the structure of how appears to the computer HAS to be the same in that have an external drive formatted with APFS and move it between Intel Mac and ASi Mac without issue and read and write happily to the external disk.

but that does NOT mean that have to have Fusion support on the ASi Mac APFS implementation ( or just ASI Mac for shorter and less torturous to say and type). No ASi Mac shipped with Fusion or is likely to ship with Fusion as Apple exclusively ships 1 disk Mac’s and APPLES reason for Fusion is no there anymore.

giving the ASi Mac OS, the feature to create Volume and format with APFS still has to be coded. It doesn’t magically appear.

same goes for if wanted to mount an APFS disk in Windows. You would need to install a 3rd Party File System Driver in Windows such as Paragon’s APFS for Windows which allows to Read and Write but not Format APFS. Paragon would need to code into the File System Driver the ability to do formatting with APFS, however it would allow me to unmount my TB attached storage formatted with APFS from my Mac and mount on a TB equipped Windows PC with paragons NTFS file system driver and read and write files yet I can format them when attached to my Mac but not on windows despite being the same disks and same file system.

Apple has to do the same with the equivalent in Mac OS to be able to create Fusion Drives and format with APFS in Mac OS. Clearly has implemented in Mac OS on Intel But that does NOT mean has to be in Mac OS on ASi.

NOW do you understand! What you cannot or can do depends upon the File System Driver, Kernel Module , system extension etc that is loaded to work with the APFS volume and that is most definitely going to be down to what the vendor wants to implement in that piece of software AND can differ depending upon OS Or even flavours of OS if on different CPU architecture.

hence my comments originally

firstly what Fusion IS and WHY it came about. Performance boost without full cost of full SSD.

secondly the last Intel iMacs in 21.5” form still sold with fusion in entry model but dropped from all others as SSD come down in price
with these models still supported by Mac OS releases and Sonoma due to support then Apple still have to support Fusion with the latest OS.

hence why they cannot drop it like they did ZFS as you suggested they could as still have shipped macs with Fusion that would need rebuilding without Fusion to be supported.

thirdly as the last Intel Macs were 2020 and still supported then likely fusion support will drop with those Mac which will also be when drop Intel Support. as said later this is not because Intel CPU but no longer would have a shipped Mac configuration under support that had Fusion.

last part as I said no idea if Apple implemented on the ASi Mac but could not see why they would. No ASi Mac shipped with Fusion.

note here I said “ASi Mac“ not the “APFS Kernel Module or System Extension or Driver that is part of the MacOS running on the ASi Mac” as much more typing and much more mouthful to say if speaking to someone which is why people just type or say ASi Mac.
 
tl;dr

@mcnallym,
Did you notice btw, that Fusion works in M-macs?
I noticed that you completely ignored how I have shown how simply that having File System support doesn't mean you automatically get all of the features that may be in the File System. TL;DR more like don't want to admit you were wrong in asserting that simply having support for a File System means that have ALL features of the File System.

So Apple have chosen to actually code into Mac OS on AS Fusion Support. I never said they couldn't. I said I didn;t know but they had no need to as no AS Mac shipped with Fursion Drives.

Are you going to answer me on how come Windows can read APFS volumes with Paragon but cannot create APFS volumes, or how Mac can Read NTFS but cannot Write IF as you said ALL OS. Or How Linux with NTFS is not the same features as Windows or Mac OS, even when booting of the sam hardware.

And it had to be long and detailed as giving the brief way you CLEARLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND.

If you bothered to read it then you would see why YOU ARE WRONG and that simply having the File System does not mean that you get ALL of the features for the File System, and is nothing to do with CPU or even OS but simply what the developers CHOOSE to implement.

Or feel free to remain ignorant.
 
All I do know is they’re notoriously unreliable, I know from personal experience
Yep,
because ssd's (of the time) couldn't handle the wear.
I've got 2 died and 3rd dying.

Every hard drive will die, so nothing changed in that.

If you choose a ssd that TBW is 1PB or more, you'll be quite safe for the next decade.

I was quite surprised when I checked my ssd wear even with non-Fusioned, the system drive has written many gigabytes per hour on average. And even with recent OSses.
I'm just about to set a new system drive for my mini with Ventura, so I will follow that usage with an interest.

Sadly, when you boot from external, SATSMART can't load the kext, so I have to remember to boot from internal from time to time and check the wear from there.


I do think there's use for Fusion, even in the pro level.
If it is useful for user to have big pool of data, where significant portion of data does not have need to be read/write very fast and then there might be a portion of data that size changes dramatically (like in video production), it is really handy to let the automation to choose, which data needs speed and which doesn't.

I ordered Sonnet echo dual and "moderate" fast 2TB Mushkin ssd to it.
I'm planning on populate that second slot with something faster few years ahead.
This way I have maybe faster (maybe not, because pcie bottleneck), but at least bigger system drive, I still get use for the old ssd and does not end up with these system drives that are too big for just some rare tweaking, but too small for any real backupping.

If Fusion Drive would evolve to "multi-speed array", a bit like Unraid, it is a bit strange that current architecture has this limitation that faster disk needs to be smaller than the slower one.
I hope they remove this limitation.
Currently, this limitation means that if I add 2TB with that 2TB Mushkin, I'll have to leave some space out of new faster ssd, since it has to be smaller than Mushkin.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes
I noticed that you completely ignored how I have shown how simply that having File System support doesn't mean you automatically get all of the features that may be in the File System. TL;DR more like don't want to admit you were wrong in asserting that simply having support for a File System means that have ALL features of the File System.

So Apple have chosen to actually code into Mac OS on AS Fusion Support. I never said they couldn't. I said I didn;t know but they had no need to as no AS Mac shipped with Fursion Drives.

Are you going to answer me on how come Windows can read APFS volumes with Paragon but cannot create APFS volumes, or how Mac can Read NTFS but cannot Write IF as you said ALL OS. Or How Linux with NTFS is not the same features as Windows or Mac OS, even when booting of the sam hardware.

And it had to be long and detailed as giving the brief way you CLEARLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND.

If you bothered to read it then you would see why YOU ARE WRONG and that simply having the File System does not mean that you get ALL of the features for the File System, and is nothing to do with CPU or even OS but simply what the developers CHOOSE to implement.

Or feel free to remain ignorant.
Maybe you feel bad, when you write long comment, which I don't appreciate
AND
maybe I feel bad, when I need to read such a long comment, with really only a one sentence of real importance.

And yes, I understood you wrong.

I thought that you said that M-macs (or AS macs) do not have APFS fully implemented, because Apple does not need that fully implemented and therefore the support for Fusion Drive has been dropped away from M-macs.
I didn't notice any sign that you thought that this could be hypothetically done, I understod that you claimed that to be true in real world (™Matrix).

Then I thought, that when I proved that M-macs do support Fusion Drive, even when current macs do not need that and therefore we have no proof that any part of APFS is not implemented, I though that you moved the goalposts and changed your claim that it can be implemented partially, even if it isn't.

But I was clearly wrong.

And I agree that file systems can be partially implemented.
We shall see, if Apple drops some portion of APFS in the future away.
So far it seems, that it hasn't.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.