T2 chip apprehension?

[Fishrrman]

tom29786 wrote:
"I am using a Inateck that you recommend for the 2014 mini with a 500GB WD ssd. it is not as fast as the Apple Ssd in the mini. I see that you are now suggesting a different external case would that be faster than the Inateck?"

I found the Oyen Digital MiniPro enclosure which is made of metal and built like a tank, but it's a little more $$$ than the Inateck enclosures.
But it really doesn't matter, speed-wise. The performance should be about the same in either enclosure (so long as both support UASP).

The Mini's internal nvme SSD is going to be MUCH faster than a USB3 external SSD.
But with USB3, you ought to see reads around 420-430mbps and writes from 300-350mbps (writes can vary depending on drive mfr. and size).

Re external booting...
Did you do the following:
1. boot to recovery partition
2. go to the "Security Settings" app (I -think- that's the name of it) and enable booting from your external drive?

 

[oneMadRssn]

Did support for fusion with apfs really came already?
Sadly, I think you are right with next imacs.
Not because there’s something wrong with fusion, but because Apple will make more profits without fusion.
Fusion is still far ahead of pure ssd in price-performance ratio.
I guess money doesn’t matter to you, but I’d use mine for something else than ssd’s apple tax. I’ve used to use 1TB fusion drives with my macs in recent years.
For the new mini I’d have to pay $800 extra for 1TB ssd and practically get no benefit over fusion. I could afford it, but I won’t. Because that’s stupid.

Why must everything be a single unitized partition? Especially on a desktop it's completely unnecessary. On a portable laptop I can see how relying on clunky external drives or network drives can be undesirable, but that has always been the case.

What's wrong with loading the OS an apps on the fast 128GB internal SSD and keeping your files on an external USBC/TB3 drive? Or on a NAS?

Personally I use a NAS - an 8-bay Synology with 5x 4TB drives in RAID6 for ~12TB of reliable storage. With that, having a 256GB laptop is plenty.

I can’t really understand thinking that users gain something from ever speeding storages. How many seconds worktime you save from using 40Gb/s-tb3 over some ancient 2.5Gb/s ec-slot? How much average mac user gains?

You first said people have to pick between expensive or slow. I pointed out that is not true because there are fast peripheral drives that cost much less than the Apple internal upgrades. And now you changed your mind to say speed doesn't matter?

Which is it? Is the speed of an internal drive important or not?

 

[Koivari]

Just some thoughts about that T2 chip.

What if T2 can detect that RAM-modules have been replaced by user and apple geniuses can see that even if the original modules are placed back before possible service? Like some bootloader counter on Android devices.

What if they (Apple) can brick all those minis that have user replaced memory modules after some firmware update or something?

Propably not but who knows? They do have courage to do things you know

 

[Jorbanead]

Just some thoughts about that T2 chip.

What if T2 can detect that RAM-modules have been replaced by user and apple geniuses can see that even if the original modules are placed back before possible service? Like some bootloader counter on Android devices.

What if they (Apple) can brick all those minis that have user replaced memory modules after some firmware update or something?

Propably not but who knows? They do have courage to do things you know

I don’t know the law off the top of my head, but at least in the US this would probably be illegal. I know for sure they can’t void your warranty unless you actually damage the product.

 

[leo-tech]

Everything you need to know about Apple's T2 chip in the 2018 Mac mini and MacBook Air

The T2's encryption uses dedicated Apple-designed silicon instead of a third-party processor. There are two benefits to this, the first being the fact that your data never reaches the Intel processor, so it's more secure. The second is that by using dedicated hardware, there's no effect on SSD performance.

Apple T2 Security Chip Overview

 

[toke lahti]

So you'd prefer a slower MM 2014 1TB fusion over a MM 2018 256GB+1TB ext SSD for the same money*?
*) 2014 i7 8GB/1TB fusion = $1199. 2018 i3 8GB/256GB + 1TB Samsung T5 = $999 + $200

I would prefer mm2018 i7 with one 8GB or 16 GB dimm, 2 internal interchangeable storage units & internal sd-reader.
But that doesn't matter, since I'm not going to get it.
I checked T5's prices this side of the pond and they have also dropped to 200€, so I guess, I'll have to buy that.
Other choice would be split home dir to internal ssd and external spinner I already have. Home dir's Lib has to be fast, mine is 52GB. Root's Lib is 73GB. Apps is 92GB. System is ~14GB. Those alone are 231GB. 256GB is getting tight.
Either way, there's a lot of not needed hassle compared to if I could just keep using Fusion with new mini.

 

[strawbale]

I would prefer mm2018 i7 with one 8GB or 16 GB dimm, 2 internal interchangeable storage units & internal sd-reader.
But that doesn't matter, since I'm not going to get it.
I checked T5's prices this side of the pond and they have also dropped to 200€, so I guess, I'll have to buy that.
Other choice would be split home dir to internal ssd and external spinner I already have. Home dir's Lib has to be fast, mine is 52GB. Root's Lib is 73GB. Apps is 92GB. System is ~14GB. Those alone are 231GB. 256GB is getting tight.
Either way, there's a lot of not needed hassle compared to if I could just keep using Fusion with new mini.

Bear in mind that all Mac's 1TB fusion disks since late 2015 only have 24/32GB flash !

 

[toke lahti]

You first said people have to pick between expensive or slow. I pointed out that is not true because there are fast peripheral drives that cost much less than the Apple internal upgrades. And now you changed your mind to say speed doesn't matter?

Which is it? Is the speed of an internal drive important or not?

Let me explain by using small numbers representing storage speed: 0-10. 0 is the speed of 5400rpm spinner Apple used to use and 10 is the fastest ssd Apple uses now.
Lets say that the fastest external ssd can achieve the speed of 8 and cost effective ssd (like T5) would achieve the speed of 6. At the same time Fusion drive achieves the speed of 7 99% of the time of usage.
And putting the whole home dir to external spinner while having internal ssd for the system would drop the speed to something like 3 or 4.
By splitting the home dir to external spinner and internal ssd, the overall speed might be something like 5 or 6.
Anyway, manual splitting is stupid, since Apple developed Fusion to do this automatically, which is far more efficient than manual splitting.

With these numbers, I could get the speed of 7 (= Fusion) with spending zero dollars and without any hassle now or in the future.

If new mini would have a place for a second storage unit, it would be very interesting to Fusion the soldered (if there were BTO for even more expensive super)fast ssd with very large storage ssd, that can be very slow in ssd terms. This is also a very interesting question on what kind of modularity wii be in new mac pro...

By looking at academic perspective, it's really sad that Fusion was pretty much the only attemp to bring online/nearline tech to desktop level and it's now buried because of getting some tax from storage. Fusion could be very efficient with mac desktops if extended to more speed levels and external units. You could have small very fast ssd, bigger slow ssd, in the future you could add mram to the mix and there could be a das with a few nearline spinners attached, which would use no energy when not in use. Like in between Fusion drive and Time Machine drive (by perspective of speed of reaching the data). And all this handled automatically and intelligently by OS. Best thing happened to desktop storage systems in this decade and thrown away.
[doublepost=1543144187][/doublepost]

The Mini's internal nvme SSD is going to be MUCH faster than a USB3 external SSD.
But with USB3, you ought to see reads around 420-430mbps and writes from 300-350mbps (writes can vary depending on drive mfr. and size).

Wouldn't the iops speed matter much more than MBps when OS is driven from external?
There isn't very many gigabytes to read, but rather a lot of very small files all the time.

 

[toke lahti]

Bear in mind that all Mac's 1TB fusion disks since late 2015 only have 24/32GB flash !
View attachment 806414

That's why my Fusion drives' ssd part does not have Apple logo.
If new mini had a spare internal storage, the 128GB ssd they now sell, would be just fine in Fusion.
Furthermore, I'm not very sure how much does 24/32GB ssd-part in Fusion slows average usage.
Maybe for photo / video enthusiast, but you can fit the whole OS and a lot of user Lib to that 24/32GB...

 

[strawbale]

That's why my Fusion drives' ssd part does not have Apple logo.
If new mini had a spare internal storage, the 128GB ssd they now sell, would be just fine in Fusion.
Furthermore, I'm not very sure how much does 24/32GB ssd-part in Fusion slows average usage.
Maybe for photo / video enthusiast, but you can fit the whole OS and a lot of user Lib to that 24/32GB...

? "Home dir's Lib has to be fast, mine is 52GB. Root's Lib is 73GB. Apps is 92GB. System is ~14GB. Those alone are 231GB." (your words)

 

[toke lahti]

? "Home dir's Lib has to be fast, mine is 52GB. Root's Lib is 73GB. Apps is 92GB. System is ~14GB. Those alone are 231GB." (your words)

Oh yes. I need 231GB of fast storage, if there's no Fusion to handle which parts of those dirs need fast access.
With Fusion, the room for fast access is of course smaller and depending on use.

This is really the essence of Fusion. Without it, lots of data lies in fast storage, for "just in case". And the case comes very rarely.

 

[Partron22]

T2; yet another way Apple can force you to use just the hardware and Apps they want you to use.
They've been trending this way since 2010.
It's my computer, and I do not like being told what I can do with it.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Let me explain by using small numbers representing storage speed: 0-10. 0 is the speed of 5400rpm spinner Apple used to use and 10 is the fastest ssd Apple uses now.
Lets say that the fastest external ssd can achieve the speed of 8 and cost effective ssd (like T5) would achieve the speed of 6. At the same time Fusion drive achieves the speed of 7 99% of the time of usage.
And putting the whole home dir to external spinner while having internal ssd for the system would drop the speed to something like 3 or 4.

We're talking about future upgradability, right? No need to make up numbers when we have real ones. At 40Gbps of i/o speed with TB3, todays Macs will be able to support the latest and greatest SSDs for years into the future. Or, with proper RAID, they can support such speeds today if needed. On your made-up scale, that would be a 20 or so in speed.

With these numbers, I could get the speed of 7 (= Fusion) with spending zero dollars and without any hassle now or in the future.

Since when does Fusion cost zero? Upgrades and extra storage always cost more, no matter how you do it.

Also, nothing is stopping you from using Fusion on the new Mac Mini. Get an inexpensive spinner into a USB-C enclosure, and make it a Fusion with the built-in 128GB SSD. There's your Fusion, enjoy! It's a good system.

Or even better, get a few spinners in RAID0 configuration into a multi-drive USBC/TB3 enclosure (which would be faster than SATAIII), and Fusion that with the internal SSD. Boom - fast, huge, and relatively inexpensive storage.

 

[Cashmonee]

I was under the impression that the security features of the T2 can be essentially disabled by disabling secure boot. Is that not correct?

 

[toke lahti]

We're talking about future upgradability, right? No need to make up numbers when we have real ones. At 40Gbps of i/o speed with TB3, todays Macs will be able to support the latest and greatest SSDs for years into the future. Or, with proper RAID, they can support such speeds today if needed. On your made-up scale, that would be a 20 or so in speed.

No, I'm talking about both now AND in the future.
And running an OS is all about iops, not so much about how many bytes can be read or written in a second.

Since when does Fusion cost zero? Upgrades and extra storage always cost more, no matter how you do it.

I already have 1.1TB fusion. In my mm2012.

Also, nothing is stopping you from using Fusion on the new Mac Mini. Get an inexpensive spinner into a USB-C enclosure, and make it a Fusion with the built-in 128GB SSD. There's your Fusion, enjoy! It's a good system.

I think Apple is stopping me. Or at least was. Fusioning used to work only with internal drives.
Do you know that this has changed?
I'm not gonna update my mm2012 to Mojave to test this out, since there's so much software that AFAIK does not work with Mojave.

Or even better, get a few spinners in RAID0 configuration into a multi-drive USBC/TB3 enclosure (which would be faster than SATAIII), and Fusion that with the internal SSD. Boom - fast, huge, and relatively inexpensive storage.

Again, Fusion with external drives?
Also, there's been incompability with raid modes with Fusion.
When I first decided to use Fusion, I had my system disk as raid1 in my cMP.
Then I thought that of course Fusion would work with any logical disk and tried to use that raid1 as the slower half of the Fusion drive, but it didn't work.
There has been upgrade in Fusion, since it now works with APFS, but there's no documentation available on what has changed and if there's new possibilities with this "Mojave"-version of Fusion.

EDIT:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202574
"

• An external drive can't be used as part of a Fusion Drive volume."

Support page has been published well before Mojave and Fusion worked with APFS, so there might be changes that are not documented.

 

[Boyd01]

Funny... this Ars Technica review says the new Mini sucks, but the T2 chip is cool.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/11/mac-mini-review-a-testament-to-apples-stubbornness/

"T2: Great movie, great chip
The new system includes Apple's new T2 security chip, and frankly this is one area where Apple's ability and willingness to build things that aren't quite PCs is a virtue."

 

[oneMadRssn]

No, I'm talking about both now AND in the future.
And running an OS is all about iops, not so much about how many bytes can be read or written in a second.


I already have 1.1TB fusion. In my mm2012.


I think Apple's is stopping me. Or at least was. Fusioning used to work only with internal drives.
Do you know that this has changed?
I'm not gonna update my mm2012 to Mojave to test this out, since there's so much software that AFAIK does not work with Mojave.


Again, Fusion with external drives?
Also, there's been incompability with raid modes with Fusion.
When I first decided to use Fusion, I had my system disk as raid1 in my cMP.
Then I thought that of course Fusion would work with any logical disk and tried to use that raid1 as the slower half of the Fusion drive, but it didn't work.
There has been upgrade in Fusion, since it now works with APFS, but there's no documentation available on what has changed and if there's new possibilities with this "Mojave"-version of Fusion.

EDIT:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202574
"

• An external drive can't be used as part of a Fusion Drive volume."

Support page has been published well before Mojave and Fusion worked with APFS, so there might be changes that are not documented.

Fair enough - didn’t know fusion doesn’t work with external drives. Sounds like fusion is pretty limited then...

 

[toke lahti]

Fair enough - didn’t know fusion doesn’t work with external drives. Sounds like fusion is pretty limited then...

That is a sad thing. Biggest thing in file systems and disk operating systems.
And proprietary apple tech, which they don't want people to use.
Just wishing that they release the code so it could be inserted to freebsd running under the mac's hood.