Why are people opting for FUSION drives over full SSD on upcoming iMacs?

[TouchMint.com]

I am really hoping they offer 256gb drive otherwise I will be going with just the reg 1tb and hoping its possible to upgrade down the road.

It seems if you use your windows partition for any gaming you wont be benefiting from the ssd in the fusion anyways there just is not enough room on 128 for osx, windows and large games...

 

[tuccillo]

It might work at the block level and not the file level.

Since your Virtual machine is one big file, I'm thinking it's likely to end up on the HDD side of things.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Since your Virtual machine is one big file, I'm thinking it's likely to end up on the HDD side of things.

You can split vms across 2gb files.

 

[forty2j]

Since your Virtual machine is one big file, I'm thinking it's likely to end up on the HDD side of things.

My VM won't be terribly big anyway.. probably just the OS plus one or two games.

 

[dearlaserworks]

Money is reluctantly at the ready

A huge shame they've not done a small SSD + HDD option this time round without the Fusion.

You can buy Fusion & reformat as two volumes, but you still pay Apple prices for the 128GB SSD. Upside is AppleCare covers your SSD.

 

[RPhoto]

You can buy Fusion & reformat as two volumes, but you still pay Apple prices for the 128GB SSD. Upside is AppleCare covers your SSD.

Ok thats interesting, didn't know you could do that. I guess although not ideal it's something to consider at least, thanks

 

[NJRonbo]

I understand the reason to go FUSION is mostly a financial decision.

I can't blame people for not wanting to spend an exorbitant amount on an SSD drive.

I look at the situation this way....

If I am buying a $3k computer that is going to last me for the next 3-4 years, I want the best that money can buy and be "future proofed" for what is to come.

SSD is going to be the standard in the years ahead, I think. Just need the prices to normalize.

I have considered the feedback all of you have given -- I thank you for it -- but in the end I am going to have to hold my nose and go with a full SSD option.

 

[gnasher729]

Meaning that the 768gb ssd is close enough in size to the 1tb fusion, that people probably only choose the fusion because its much cheaper.

Which is a pretty good reason. If you can get almost the same speed, plus lots more storage (1128 GB is a lot more than 768), for an awful lot less money, why would you pay more?

Since your Virtual machine is one big file, I'm thinking it's likely to end up on the HDD side of things.

Since Fusion works below the file system level, it doesn't even know that you have a VM file, and it will put the bits that are used a lot on the SSD, and the bits that are used less on the HDD.

There really is no reason at all to buy a fusion drive. I use an SSD and mechancial drives to get speed and mass storage. Apple claims the idea of fusion is to give you this sort of setup automatically. But nobody who cares about performance will be comfortable with that and the rest of the people won't care about fusion except the marketing hype.

I don't care about the performance of the drive - I care about how long it takes me to get something done. If I spend an hour micromanaging what goes on what drive, and then save five minutes access time, that looks like a very bad deal to me. And I doubt that you will actually more speed by managing everything yourself. Fusion works at a lower and more precise level than you do. You want to keep the system folder on the SSD. Fusion figures out that of the 200 printer drivers in the OS, 198 are never used and moves them off. It figures out that of the many megabytes of the iTunes app, 80 percent is versions in languages that you don't care about and removes those. Still, everything stays working and is there when you need it.

So can you set up your own fusion and install an SSD yourself in an iMac - will it ruin your warranty?

No. Your warranty will only be voided in three cases:

1. If you damage the Mac while adding the SSD drive. If you scratch the motherboard with a screwdriver, Apple isn't going to pay for the repair obviously.
2. If the SSD drive somehow damages the computer. That seems highly unlikely, but if your non-Apple SSD drive explodes, Apple won't fix the Mac.
3. And obviously Apple won't fix the SSD drive itself if it breaks, but the manufacturer should.

 

[gnasher729]

Mh i would like to know how fast Fusion Drive would Start an App. That has been used rarely

If its used very rarely then it doesn't matter. If it matters, then it will be on the SSD drive and it will be fast. And Fusion doesn't have to keep the whole app in the same place. Appls like iMovie and Garageband come with tons of stuff that you might never use, and the bits that you use will be on the SSD drive, and the rest disappears on the HD.

 

[IGregory]

Youtube Fusion Drive Performance demo

Here

 

[NewbieCanada]

You can buy Fusion & reformat as two volumes, but you still pay Apple prices for the 128GB SSD. Upside is AppleCare covers your SSD.

Not that easily. Disk Utility only sees one drive.

 

[hfg]

Not that easily. Disk Utility only sees one drive.

You can't (currently) do it from Disk Utility ...

If you look at the threads here on creating your own "Fusion" drive on older systems, you will notice the terminal commands used have similar undo commands. You use these to break the joined coreStorage drives and revert them back to normal stand-alone drives. Very easy.

 

[MJD Dawg]

It depends. If the App (and data files) are present on the SSD component then it will be faster than if they are present on the hardrive component. Just because the app (and data files ) are rarely used doesn't mean they are not on the SSD component. They could be if initially stored on the SSD component and the space they are taking on the SSD component isn't needed by something else. In other words, if the SSD isn't full then they could still be SSD resident. There are several different replacement strategies for hierarchical systems - I don't know the exact details of the Apple implementation.

This is bang on...except that with Apple's implementation you don't have a choice of where IO goes. All IO goes to the SSD first:

New files are saved transparently to the SSD side of the Fusion Drive, as are new applications you install. Everything goes to the SSD first.

Promotion to/Demotion from SSD takes as little as two reads before it's moved to the SSD from the HDD.

That was the most number of times I had to try to promote something, too. Subsequent tests with different files (all large files, between 800MB and 2GB) all showed the whole-file tiering kicking off after two full reads instead of four. With every file except the initial one, the files were promoted up to SSD after just two reads and the third read was from SSD. At the same time, since the SSD was at capacity from my earlier testing, an equal amount of data was demoted down to HDD shortly after.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/achieving-fusion-with-a-service-training-doc-ars-tears-open-apples-fusion-drive/

 

[rainbowsofwhite]

Little to none disadvantage, well that's a bit of wishful thinking. The disadvantages are huge.
1. All tests so far shows that it has nearly as good performance, but this is only because it has been tested on new machines with empty hdd's. so the ssd is doing all the work. We haven't really seen the fusion tech in the works yet which would obviously slow it down.
2. You have two disks to worry about one regular hdd and one ssd, whichever breaks first will take down the other. So chances of a faulty hdd is suddenly doubled.... So make sure to keep a backup!

That's the exact reason I'm getting the 768 Flash Storage option.
As well as lower energy consumption and heat.

I don't care if I have save up for another month...

 

[rainbowsofwhite]

Really hard to say what the best choice is without knowing pricing.

I totally agree.
I don't mind not knowing the release date.

But wouldn't it be lovely to know the BTO prices now!! - in case you need to
save up some more serious $$$$

 

[macpro2000]

I'll have to get the 3TB Fusion...768 is just not enough for me. My 1TB is almost full on my current 27".

 

[MacPat333]

Only the price, I am not in the position to pay $ 1000.00 for a SSD hard drive. If Apple would offer a smaller SSD like 256GB at no extra cost, I wouldn't need 1TB Fusion, I'd work with an external drive. But Apple is smart, they give you a **** slow HDD, a Fusion which most will go for (and they will make good money on it) or the freaking expensive 768GB SSD.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Just curious...

I know very little about SSD drives other than the fact that Apple charges a pretty penny for them.

I have a full 512GB SSD drive on my Retina Macbook Pro and I will never go back to a hard drive.

So, when I put together my new 27" iMac, I am looking to get a full SSD drive over a Fusion drive. I put a lot of software on my computer and I want all of it (not just some of it) to launch as quickly as possible.

Looking around at posts on this board, it seems that many are opting for the Fusion drive.

So, here is the question....

Besides cost -- and maybe it's purely a financial decision -- what do most of you see as the advantage of going Fusion over a full SSD drive?

Wouldn't you want the ability to have more SSD space available for all the software you will put on your computer for the next few years?

Perhaps I'm missing out on something due to my lack of knowledge about SSD drives. I have heard something about them slowing down over time when constantly writing/rewriting to them.

Thanks

One word: Capacity. There's very little advantage to an iMac over a MacBook Pro other than capacity and, in the case of the 27" iMac, faster graphics and CPUs. Fusion drives offer the best of both worlds with performance gains that achieve most of what your 768GB drive will do for you at a fraction of the cost and with room for so much more stuff.

 

[flynz4]

My issue is that the amount of data that I (want/need) to be on the SSD is significantly larger than the 128GB portion of the fusion drive. I spend a lot of time within Aperture... and my library will not fit within the 128GB SSD portion of the Fusion drive... even if I had control over which data was moved to the SSD.

For capacity... I already have an 8TB Pegasus R4 Thunderbolt array (configured as a 4TB RAID 10 array). Depending upon the price of the 768GB SSD, I will either:

1) Get the 768 GB SSD
2) Get an external Thunderbolt SSD for my Aperture library... and get the 1GB Fusion drive and only keep programs etc on my iMac so that nothing ever spills over onto the 1TB HDD.
3) Get the 1GB Fusion drive... and keep 100% of user data (including my A3 library) on the Pegasus R4.

If I go to option 2, my data would be distributed as follows:

a) Fusion 128GB SSD: OSX, Applications, etc
b) Fusion 1TB HDD: Empty
c) External SSD: Aperture library
d) Pegasus RAID 10 Array: Everything else​

If I go to option 3, my data would be distributed as follows:

a) Fusion 128GB SSD: OSX, Applications, etc
b) Fusion 1TB HDD: Empty
c) Pegasus RAID 10 Array: Everything else (including my Aperture library)​

I would prefer the internal 768GB SSD (option 1)... and will probably get that irrespective of price.

/Jim

 

[iMcLovin]

I don't really think the 768gb is coined at personal use. It's for rich kids and those who use the machine professionally. I'm in that 2nd category. I will use this machine for work mainly. Because of this it's deductible and will cost me 1/3 of its price... So of course ill go for ssd. For those that will use the machine for private use only, the fusion drive is a great low cost alternative which you should pick.
But of course 100% ssd is a better option if not it would be silly for apple to include it as an option

 

[MattZani]

Money is reluctantly at the ready

A huge shame they've not done a small SSD + HDD option this time round without the Fusion.

Order Fusion, the break it in to two.

 

[TeeeCeee]

Not sound engineering

Everyone here knows that the failure rate of a SSD is directly related to the number of delete / write cycles and not read cycles. The dumb idea of a fusion drive is to consistently filling it up fully and then spill (delete) older data down to the HDD, while you are filling it up full again with new data.(Also utilising a SSD near full is another dumb idea unless you want it to break).
I anticipate it to fail many times faster than a SSD normally used (mainly for read at smaller fill). --------Stressed out.
If you want 500G, get 4x Samsung 830 128G @ $90 each and set them up in RAID0 in an iMac with 2 put internally and 2 via Thunderbolt. You will get over 1000MB/sec W/R speed and reliability due to your each SSD only get 1/4 of the activities. Back the whole thing up each day with CCC clone onto a USB HDD for safe keep.
I had mine set up like that for months with no problems.

 

[iMcLovin]

I've decided to go for a 768 SSD and have a constantly attached thunderbolt 2big Lacie 6tb HDD. And probably go Raid on that one to have double security. Then my 768 SSD will be the stuff I use mostly and I'll dump whatever I need onto the Lacie disk.
Its gonna cost but I'm all ready prepared to pay the price and I've bought the Lacie disk in anticipation of the iMac.

 

[flynz4]

Everyone here knows that the failure rate of a SSD is directly related to the number of delete / write cycles and not read cycles. The dumb idea of a fusion drive is to consistently filling it up fully and then spill (delete) older data down to the HDD, while you are filling it up full again with new data.(Also utilising a SSD near full is another dumb idea unless you want it to break).
I anticipate it to fail many times faster than a SSD normally used (mainly for read at smaller fill). --------Stressed out.
If you want 500G, get 4x Samsung 830 128G @ $90 each and set them up in RAID0 in an iMac with 2 put internally and 2 via Thunderbolt. You will get over 1000MB/sec W/R speed and reliability due to your each SSD only get 1/4 of the activities. Back the whole thing up each day with CCC clone onto a USB HDD for safe keep.
I had mine set up like that for months with no problems.

It is extremely unlikely that you would wear out the SSD in the lifetime of your computer. SSD's continually do internal wear leveling automatically. I think you are over paranoid about SSD lifespan. Other failure rate mechanisms are more likely than NAND wear levels. SSDs are still more reliable than HDDs.

Using RAID 0 increases the risk of device failure more than your concern of SSD NAND wear levels. There are many other potential failure mechanisms of SSDs (or any device). Your new failure rate (fr) decreases to about 1-(1-fr)^4. I think spreading the writes across 4 devices has only a secondary affect on reliability... and is washed out in the overall reliability degradation of RAID 0.

Cloning your SSD array nightly propagates errors... so you still need a backup strategy. I would not recommend considering a clone as "backup". (nor am I suggesting that you personally consider cloning as a backup strategy... I just don't want to see other's get confused).

Measuring SSD performance in MB/s is about the worst possible metric to use, and is a remnant of HDD metrics. IOPs is much better (and would still be benefited by RAID0).

/Jim

 

[flynz4]

I've decided to go for a 768 SSD and have a constantly attached thunderbolt 2big Lacie 6gb HDD. And probably go Raid on that one to have double security. Then my 768 SSD will be the stuff I use mostly and I'll dump whatever I need onto the Lacie disk.
Its gonna cost but I'm all ready prepared to pay the price and I've bought the Lacie disk in anticipation of the iMac.

I have made the same conclusion as you unless the prices of the 768GB are totally out of whack. I expect about a $1.2K (+/- a few hundred) premium which is reasonable IMHO. It will make the machine so much more usable for my primary application. In my case, I'll use it in conjunction with an 8TB Thunderbolt Pegasus R4 array.

This machine will be used for 4-6 years total. I'll use it for 2-3... then my wife will use it for another 2-3 (my typical upgrade period). By 2015, even my (technology adverse) wife would not want a machine based on HDD technology.

By the time I replace this 2012 iMac... I suspect that internal SSDs will reach the point where I will never need an external array any longer... unless I desire to maintain a video collection. With the accelerating trend in video-on-demand as a service... I am not sure that keeping video is something that I will even want to bother with.

/Jim