Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
unsure to go fusion or ssd?
- Thread starter super spud
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Creating a Fusion drive involves a reformat of both drives, "destroying" any data they contained. You must back-up your drives first, then create/break the Fusion drive, then restore your system and data. It is quite easy, but does take some time for the backup/restore operations.
As usual the proponents of the fusion drive are "forgetting" some key issues: More mechanical noise (depends on the individual hard drive though), slow spin-ups freezing programs, more heat (esp. an issue for those who like to play games), slow performance in Bootcamp (only HD). Mechanical drives are also more prone to crash/develop errors than SSDs in my experience, never had a single problem/error with SSDs in 4.5 years.
Fusion is a very nice technology, but its functionality depends on the user's specific needs. IMO if you have the money always go for an SSD solution, and add external HDs later if you should need them.
Fusion is a very nice technology, but its functionality depends on the user's specific needs. IMO if you have the money always go for an SSD solution, and add external HDs later if you should need them.
Let me summarize, with the correct answer being to get the FD:
- Lower cost
- The Fusion is just as fast as an SSD. No freezing.
- You get more space.
- No management of separate drives.
- It's just as reliable as SSD. Since HDD these days are as reliable as SSD.
- Even if you are concerned with reliability, Apple has many excellent ways to backup.
- Well-engineered enough to run cool, since HDD isn't operating most of the time. The 2012 runs stone-cold anyway.
Interesting point (although moot since the SSD has apparently already been ordered).
What's your source that a magnetic HD today will last as long as an SSD? This is not the understanding I've come to after reading a good bit on the subject.
-SSD runs dead silent.
-Remember the adage "The grass is greener on the other side"? Well, Fusion Drive is like the bridge before you get to the greener bit.
-FD still spins, which makes it more vulnerable to failure. Imagine the horror you'll have once you're writing on it and all of the sudden, there was a power surge.
-No moving parts means lesser chances of damage.
I came from a Late-2009 27" iMac to my recently purchased Late-2013 with a 1TB Fusion Drive and I have yet to hear the hard disk on this machine. I know it must be accessing it at some point but I can't hear it and I have a very clear point of reference having spent the past 4 years with the comparatively noisy HDD-only machine.
1) Back up your data (goes without saying)
2) Get AppleCare and you've got nothing at all to worry about for at least the next 3 years.
Any component can fail, including SSDs. HDDs are obviously far more prone to failures but this is why backup is key. I keep both full on and off site system backups and I recommend everyone with valuable data to protect do the same.
People choose FD, as I did, when weighing the cost per GB of storage vs speed. With FD, you get the benefit of ssd speed and massive storage. It's true that hdd's will eventually fail due to the fact that they're made with moving parts that at some point will stop working. Getting applecare takes care of a big portion of the risk, as does regular backups.
And it's not like ssd's are failure proof - just look at what's happening to a number of mba's from 2012.
Expecting any computer component to last forever is silly, given we are all likely to upgrade before the useful life of a computer ends, as we seek faster, better technologies.
I've generally used my various Apple computers until their complete death, generally a time far longer than I probably should and have only had to replace 2 hdd's in the past 10+ years.
And it's not like ssd's are failure proof - just look at what's happening to a number of mba's from 2012.
Expecting any computer component to last forever is silly, given we are all likely to upgrade before the useful life of a computer ends, as we seek faster, better technologies.
I've generally used my various Apple computers until their complete death, generally a time far longer than I probably should and have only had to replace 2 hdd's in the past 10+ years.
I thought hdd were less reliable? Ive know hdds to fail. Not had experiance with ssd so can not say.
I think the future lies with ssd atleast thats were apple seem to be going with their macbook line.
At this point SSDs do seem to be more reliable but there's also a whole lot less data on them. Most traditional hard drives will fail somewhere between the 3-5 year mark, usually trending towards the latter, while not a many people have even had SSDs that long yet.
Some of the arguments against the Fusion drive here are fairly rational while others sound a bit overcautious. We've been using traditional hard drives for years, the same issues do exist but it's not like this is some sudden new phenomenon
The MTBF for modern HDD are very high even if they are somewhat less than SSD, we're talking a million to 2 million hours. It's like the difference between a car that lasts 300k miles vs 350 k miles. You probably won't use it that long. And you pay for that extra, arguably insignificant, life.
Yes I know MTBF doesn't predict how long a drive will last, but it is a valid statistic if you know what it means. It's a way to compare reliability between machines.
http://www.storagereview.com/ssd_vs_hdd
Bottom line is both are so reliable, the difference doesn't matter for average usage. Now if you store the American nuke codes, you should go SSD.
----------
Actually, I don't think HDDs are "far more prone" to failure. Just because it's mechanical doesn't mean they are far less reliable.
They are more prone than SSD, but we're talking about 99.5% vs 99.8% reliable here. In other words, the difference is insignificant.
----------
When costs come down for SSD, i'd agree with you. But as of 2013, that's not the case and FD is a damn clever solution that gives you both SSD speed and cheap storage.
Since you have no experience with SSD, you can't compare. SSD drives do fail as well. And as capacity grows, there are fewer and fewer atoms per bit of storage on an SSD drive, so things are not getting better. And the technology is new. There are SSD drives out there that are dying quickly, and the brand new drive you buy today may have faults that are only discovered 12 months from now.
Fact, plain and simple: SSD drives are faster than hard drives, and far more than ten times more expensive per Gigabyte. And it's not going to change quickly. If your needs for data are low, you can buy SSD. If you need tons of data and fast, you must buy SSD and pay through the nose. If you want speed for most data plus huge storage where speed isn't important, you combine both.
Well to be honest I dont needs tons of storage. 256 gb will last me for 2/3 years. Beyond that i think id exceed this limit. Would you advise of a fusion or pure ssd considering I tend to keep my machines until something fails and not because of new must have technologies.
Fair enough, thanks for the correction.
At any rate, the point is that if one backs up their data properly, a hardware failure won't be the end of the world.
I went with the Fusion Drive for it's combination of speed, storage and price and I am very glad I did.
That's why I went FD, I'm extremely glad I did. After using a friend's Macbook with SSD, I cannot tell the difference in regular use.
I was reading a guide to create a fusion drive and it stated both drives had to be internal?
[[ I was reading a guide to create a fusion drive and it stated both drives had to be internal? ]]
No, you can "fuse" an internal and an external drive, if you wish.
I don't believe Apple's "CORE Storage" routines are particular about _where_ the two drives are, physically. However, with an internal/external hardware setup, you'll have to use Terminal to create the fused drive.
Of course, you would want a stable connection to the external drive, and keep the external drive in a location where it would not be subject to "accidental disconnection".
Even if you tried to boot with the external portion of the fused drive disconnected, I don't believe the fused drive would be "damaged" -- just wouldn't boot (of course).
No, you can "fuse" an internal and an external drive, if you wish.
I don't believe Apple's "CORE Storage" routines are particular about _where_ the two drives are, physically. However, with an internal/external hardware setup, you'll have to use Terminal to create the fused drive.
Of course, you would want a stable connection to the external drive, and keep the external drive in a location where it would not be subject to "accidental disconnection".
Even if you tried to boot with the external portion of the fused drive disconnected, I don't believe the fused drive would be "damaged" -- just wouldn't boot (of course).
Thanks for all your comments.
just waiting on my machine to arrive.
Im still very much undecided. The only thing putting me off the fusion drive is reliability of the hdd beyond 3 years (once my apple care has expired)
just waiting on my machine to arrive.
Im still very much undecided. The only thing putting me off the fusion drive is reliability of the hdd beyond 3 years (once my apple care has expired)