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

[tann]

For the cost of course!! You get 1.1tb of pretty fast space vs hardly any space on a ssd only system.

I would have preferred to have the option of having a flash storage separate from the regular 1/3tb hard drive, I would have happily had 256gb flash + 1tb regular .

Would willingly pay for that as well!

 

[KaraH]

I would rather go with an SSD from OWC myself and use the HDD for data I do not need fast access to (like old installers).

 

[johnnyturbouk]

apple new market plan is really turning away consumers!

I think it is idiotic what they are doing!

for me, like mentioned by a few others a sensibly priced 256 SSD would suffice, and a second 1TB HDD either as second internal drive, or via thunderbolt!

Secondly, why are apple only using a 5400rpm drive for the fusion, this is moronic, it should at least be 7200!

Im really tempted to skip this upgrade and get the new thunderbolt 27" screens instead!

 

[CoolSpot]

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.

You're making a bad choice. SSDs are the least future-proof component on a system due to how fast the capacities increase. Was flipping through the forums and saw someone trying to unload a 2010 MBA with a 64GB SSD, a laughable amount only 2 years later. Hard drive performance is not a determining factor in computer obsolescence (like say RAM, CPU, or GPU) and wasting more than a grand on less than a TB of storage seems unwise.

----------

apple new market plan is really turning away consumers!

I think it is idiotic what they are doing!

for me, like mentioned by a few others a sensibly priced 256 SSD would suffice, and a second 1TB HDD either as second internal drive, or via thunderbolt!

Secondly, why are apple only using a 5400rpm drive for the fusion, this is moronic, it should at least be 7200!

Im really tempted to skip this upgrade and get the new thunderbolt 27" screens instead!

Good call, buy an overpriced Apple monitor instead of a computer with smaller margins, that'll show em.

 

[NJRonbo]

You're making a bad choice. SSDs are the least future-proof component on a system due to how fast the capacities increase. Was flipping through the forums and saw someone trying to unload a 2010 MBA with a 64GB SSD, a laughable amount only 2 years later. Hard drive performance is not a determining factor in computer obsolescence (like say RAM, CPU, or GPU) and wasting more than a grand on less than a TB of storage seems unwise.

Coolspot,

Perhaps. However a 700GB hard drive (or whatever that size is) isn't as bad as a 64GB SSD.

In 3-4 years I may be laughed at for having a hard drive on my system.

I know it's going to be expensive, but I want the fastest means of launching all my programs. I don't think, with 400GB of content, that a Fusion drive is going to be the answer.

Maybe I am completely wrong.

 

[flynz4]

I would rather go with an SSD from OWC myself and use the HDD for data I do not need fast access to (like old installers).

Which is fine for those of you who do not mind opening your computer... and do not worry about the risk of damaging it and voiding a warranty. Many people (myself included)... choose to not take that path.

The other valid option is to use Thunderbolt for your SSD... but personally, I do not want my boot drive to be externally attached... and I do not want to boot from the HDD.

At this point... I want 100% SSD inside my machines... and I'll deal with external HDD arrays for less frequently used data. This allows me to control where different classes of data live.

/Jim

 

[L3g4to]

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.

For Apple Apps maby Easy but for Games that are > 10gb, Cutted Movies etc. Could be dangerous, no matter which direktion, if you use them often or if fusiondrive needs Space on ssd and puts the fat Files back on hdd

 

[Apple Doc]

An advantage: Fusion moves things at the block level

Hi all,

Apologies if this has already been stated here, but one advantage that I have not seen mentioned so far is that Fusion Drives utilize Core Storage volumes to create the whole system. This prioritizes the data at the block level, not the file level.

And advantage of this setup is apparent in what was just mentioned above: games or other apps with monolithic files. This also applies for large packages like iPhoto or Aperture libraries, as the files inside are often quite small but the Finder and app utilizing them treats the package as a monolithic file.

The end result is you can have the 15GB of game data for the levels you're no longer playing on the HDD, while the 5GB of data for current levels, multiplayer data, app, etc. can all live on the SDD. Or you could have this year's and newly imported photos live on the SDD while the 40GB of photos from the past 10 years live on the HDD. Fusion can optimize your file-system performance at the sub-file level. And this is more important once you've hit the limit of the SSD portion of your Fusion Drive.

This is something you simply can't do with a "non-Fused" SDD/HDD setup; in the "old way" the total file has to live on one disk or the other. The biggest drawback to the "Fusion way" is what has already been mentioned: you have to stop thinking of the Fusion as "really being" 2 disks for the purpose of reliability. It is a Fusion Drive. Make a backup of the Fusion drive. If one of the two parts of the drive fail, you lose ALL the data on both since there's no way to tell which blocks for which files are on which physical disk.* So use Time Machine or Carbon Copy Cloner or whatever, just like you should be doing anyway. This same issue crops up if you want to upgrade the HDD yourself later on (although that might be tough with these iMacs anyway, this also applies to the Mac mini): you have to reformat the entire Fusion Drive to create the new disk with the bigger HDD component and then copy your entire old drive back.

*I'm sure eventually companies like DiskWarrior and recovery specialist shops will be able to come up with a way to read which files have all of their blocks on the still-working drive. But we're not there yet. As it is, I don't think anyone yet knows how OS X keeps track of which blocks are on which disk when both are working just fine.

 

[tuccillo]

The whole idea behind the hierarchical storage manager (i.e. fusion) is that the larger storage tier (the HDD) can be slow since the hit rate on the faster tier (SSD) is expected to be high. There could also be some engineering reasons, such as heat, that drove the decision to 5400 RPM drives in the 21.5" iMac. Without knowing all of the parameters that went into the decision, I would refrain from labeling the decision as "moronic".

I work for a computer manufacturer. There are serious consequences to the number of options you offer. I was not entirely thrilled with the options for the 2012 iMac (and the prices) and found that a refurbished 2011 made more sense.

apple new market plan is really turning away consumers!

I think it is idiotic what they are doing!

for me, like mentioned by a few others a sensibly priced 256 SSD would suffice, and a second 1TB HDD either as second internal drive, or via thunderbolt!

Secondly, why are apple only using a 5400rpm drive for the fusion, this is moronic, it should at least be 7200!

Im really tempted to skip this upgrade and get the new thunderbolt 27" screens instead!

 

[Sussman]

If considering a windows partition...

I would like to point out that if you are planning on having a Windows partition on a Fusion Drive the partition will only live on the slow HDD. Therefore Windows will not see any of the speed benefits of the Fusion Drive and the HDD only spins at 5400 RPM. This could be a problem if you want a Windows partition for gaming (DayZ!). Source: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5446

 

[Oracle1729]

If you are unhappy with the tradeoffs in the design then you are a candidate for a MacPro. If you were truly looking for performance you would be using a unix server with the server version of SandyBridge(E5-2690), PCI based SSDs, and RAID disk devices ;-)

Good thinking, get a 2010 computer at 2010 prices with server hardware I couldn't care less about and not even a USB3 or Thunderbolt port. Or support for a modern consumer graphics chip.

I bought the right computer for me, a i7-3770k Hackintosh. Couldn't be happier with it, but I would have been just as happy spending $2-3k on apple for a suitable machine.

 

[TouchMint.com]

I would like to point out that if you are planning on having a Windows partition on a Fusion Drive the partition will only live on the slow HDD. Therefore Windows will not see any of the speed benefits of the Fusion Drive and the HDD only spins at 5400 RPM. This could be a problem if you want a Windows partition for gaming (DayZ!). Source: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5446

well said and this is why I will just be getting the standard 7200 drive or a 256 ssd if they decide to offer.

 

[hfg]

I would like to point out that if you are planning on having a Windows partition on a Fusion Drive the partition will only live on the slow HDD. Therefore Windows will not see any of the speed benefits of the Fusion Drive and the HDD only spins at 5400 RPM. This could be a problem if you want a Windows partition for gaming (DayZ!). Source: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5446

If you have enough space on your SSD, you can have Windows reside there, providing that you are willing to manipulate Fusion at the Terminal level command line interface.

You can break the Fusion drive integration, create a Windows partition on the SSD, then re-create the Fusion drive using the remaining OS X partition on the SSD and the entire hard disk.

I currently have this running on a 2011 Mac Mini using a 256GB SSD with 80GB Windows partition, and a 750GB hard disk. I eventually intend to make the allowed partition on the hard disk for additional Windows data storage there.


-howard

 

[WrrN]

Let's see..

1 TB HDD:
Estimated Price: $0 (included)
Capacity Factor: 1
Speed Factor: 1

768GB SSD:
Estimated Price: $1000-1300
Capacity Factor: 0.77
Speed Factor: 4

1 TB Fusion:
Estimated Price: $250
Capacity Factor: 1.13
Speed Factor: 3.5

Fusion appears to be perfectly acceptable compromise for the speed and cost differential.

A good way to look at it, although there are some unknowns here.

BTW, sorry to hear about your recent loss. My MBP is is in intensive care and may pull through, but will never be the same again.

 

[TeeeCeee]

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

I am definitely not paranoid about SSD failing as I am using 4x RAID0. Some makes of SSD do fail more than the others particularly when they are near full and still doing a lot of writes/delete. I had failed ones which I don't want to mention names, Samsung 830s seem good. I also have used reputable Intel 320's which are proven.
I am also not interested in error correction, just want to reboot the system from clones to get the data back if needed. Please be kind enough to provide a better alternative if u think cloning is not sufficient. Mind you I am not in charge of the banking database.
I am sure IOP's of my 4x Samsung will pass with flying colors as well.

Cheers, TC

 

[DisMyMac]

Im really tempted to skip this upgrade and get the new thunderbolt 27" screens instead!

If they give us a 30" at 2560 x 1600... definitely.

 

[Sussman]

True, but...

If you have enough space on your SSD, you can have Windows reside there, providing that you are willing to manipulate Fusion at the Terminal level command line interface.

You can break the Fusion drive integration, create a Windows partition on the SSD, then re-create the Fusion drive using the remaining OS X partition on the SSD and the entire hard disk.

I currently have this running on a 2011 Mac Mini using a 256GB SSD with 80GB Windows partition, and a 750GB hard disk. I eventually intend to make the allowed partition on the hard disk for additional Windows data storage there.


-howard

First, manipulating Fusion at the terminal level is a little over my skill level for fear of messing things up. If you can do that, more power to you.

Another thing to consider is there is no longer an optical drive, so just installing Windows gets trickier.

The average user will have to use Boot Camp which will only install Windows on the HDD. Just thought I'd point it out.

 

[rainbowsofwhite]

SSDs are the least future-proof component on a system due to how fast the capacities increase. Was flipping through the forums and saw someone trying to unload a 2010 MBA with a 64GB SSD, a laughable amount only 2 years later. Hard drive performance is not a determining factor in computer obsolescence (like say RAM, CPU, or GPU) and wasting more than a grand on less than a TB of storage seems unwise.

----------

I hear what you're saying and yes SSD is definitely very expensive at the moment.
But if money was no option, would you buy one?

I'm sure you know all the positives that SSD's have.
Less energy usage, less heat production, no moving parts and therefore more durable, faster etc, etc....
It's like comparing a record player to an iPod. Old technology vs new.

View attachment 377169

A hard disk drive with mechanics vs. a solid state drive with NAND flash chips (source: Intel)

 

[torana355]

I need somewhere to store my media library (over 2TB's and growing) I also need somewhere to backup my media library and system file/apps. I store my media on the internal HDD portion and back everything up to an external drive. All systemfiles and apps run on SSD. The fusion drive will work perfectly for my workflow.

 

[flynz4]

I am also not interested in error correction, just want to reboot the system from clones to get the data back if needed. Please be kind enough to provide a better alternative if u think cloning is not sufficient. Mind you I am not in charge of the banking database.
Cheers, TC

TC,

It is fine to create a bootable clone if you want... nothing wrong with that. I was just warning others that this is NOT backup per se. A clone is simply a snapshot of your data.. and the next day when a new clone is made... there is no history... it is just a new snapshot.

The problem is if there is any data corruption, inadvertent file deletion... inadvertent destructive editing, etc... that error propagates to the clone and 24 hours later (based on a daily clone schedule)... the original "correct" data is gone.

Secondly... if there is a drive failure during the actual cloning process... both your primary drive and your clone may be destroyed together.

More important than a clone is having a true backup... one that contains the history of all data. Hence... any of the corruption or inadvertent data destruction described above can still be recovered... months, years, or decades after the damage was done.

Personally, I recommend a dual backup strategy:
1) Local backup for quick recovery. I use Time Machine
2) Cloud backup for disaster recovery. I use Crashplan+

Once you have those two in place... there is absolutely nothing wrong in:
3) A daily bootable clone of your drive

The thing that I was trying to warn about was that #3 is not a substitute for #1 or #2.

/Jim

 

[TeeeCeee]

TC,

It is fine to create a bootable clone if you want... nothing wrong with that. I was just warning others that this is NOT backup per se. A clone is simply a snapshot of your data.. and the next day when a new clone is made... there is no history... it is just a new snapshot.

The problem is if there is any data corruption, inadvertent file deletion... inadvertent destructive editing, etc... that error propagates to the clone and 24 hours later (based on a daily clone schedule)... the original "correct" data is gone.

Secondly... if there is a drive failure during the actual cloning process... both your primary drive and your clone may be destroyed together.

More important than a clone is having a true backup... one that contains the history of all data. Hence... any of the corruption or inadvertent data destruction described above can still be recovered... months, years, or decades after the damage was done.

Personally, I recommend a dual backup strategy:
1) Local backup for quick recovery. I use Time Machine
2) Cloud backup for disaster recovery. I use Crashplan+

Once you have those two in place... there is absolutely nothing wrong in:
3) A daily bootable clone of your drive

The thing that I was trying to warn about was that #3 is not a substitute for #1 or #2.

/Jim

Thanks Jim

I tried Time Machine , it is just a bit tedious and the OSX does not report the correct disk space consumed so I had no idea if my backup drive is near full. Because it uses dynamic links (pointers). I found the space used increases everyday by quite a large amount (it probably didn't) so I stopped using it.
I'll try again.

TC

 

[madrag]

In my opinion the reason people are opting for Fusion drives is because of the size vs performance/speed.

I wouldn't mind going for the 1TB HDD because of the price difference, but Apple cleaverly used a 5400rpm HDD so that people opt for the other options (just guessing).

Even so, why didn't they use a 7200rpm HDD + SSD Fusion? that would be even better than the current Fusion, wouldn't it?

Finally, why not giving the option of a HDD and a SSD (separate), is it a contraint in space available in the anorexic "released" iMac?

 

[tuccillo]

So fine. Apple doesn't make what you want and you bought something else. I do that all the time. While the server processor in the MacPro is a bit long in the tooth, the contemporary SandyBridge server processors are considerably different than the contemporary desktop processors.

Good thinking, get a 2010 computer at 2010 prices with server hardware I couldn't care less about and not even a USB3 or Thunderbolt port. Or support for a modern consumer graphics chip.

I bought the right computer for me, a i7-3770k Hackintosh. Couldn't be happier with it, but I would have been just as happy spending $2-3k on apple for a suitable machine.

 

[gnasher729]

Thanks Jim

I tried Time Machine , it is just a bit tedious and the OSX does not report the correct disk space consumed so I had no idea if my backup drive is near full. Because it uses dynamic links (pointers). I found the space used increases everyday by quite a large amount (it probably didn't) so I stopped using it.
I'll try again.

TC

It's like the Fusion drive - just don't worry about it!

Time Machine creates what looks like a complete snapshot of your hard drive now. Plus a complete snapshot of your hard drive of an hour ago. One of two hours ago. ... One of 24 hours ago. One of the day before, for several days. Then weekly ones. If you add up all the sizes, it gets enormous.

It will eventually take up all the space on your backup drive. That's nothing to worry about, it's absolutely normal. It's supposed to happen. No point in having a 1TB backup drive if a few hundred GB are not used. When Time Machine runs out of space, it will create more space by removing the oldest backups.

Even so, why didn't they use a 7200rpm HDD + SSD Fusion? that would be even better than the current Fusion, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. First, there are no 2.5inch 1 TB 7200 rpm drives. Second, the highest density drives are 5400 rpm. That's always the case. The highest density drives are always at lower rpm, but read as much data per second than the lower density higher rpm drives. There's a disadvantage when you access lots of small files - but you don't have any small files on the HD portion of a Fusion drive!

Finally, why not giving the option of a HDD and a SSD (separate), is it a contraint in space available in the anorexic "released" iMac?

There are people asking for that. I consider them to be control freaks. I wouldn't want to waste my time arranging files between two drives. In a Fusion drive, the SSD drive is always close to full, so you are actually getting the speed advantage from the whole 128 GB that you paid for. If you manage it manually, either the SSD drive isn't full, so you paid for many GBs that you are not actually using, or it is full, and you keep having to move things to the HD.

The end result is you can have the 15GB of game data for the levels you're no longer playing on the HDD, while the 5GB of data for current levels, multiplayer data, app, etc. can all live on the SDD. Or you could have this year's and newly imported photos live on the SDD while the 40GB of photos from the past 10 years live on the HDD. Fusion can optimize your file-system performance at the sub-file level. And this is more important once you've hit the limit of the SSD portion of your Fusion Drive.

Very well said. And if you use Parallels or VMWare Fusion (what a coincidence with the names) to run Windows, they will also benefit from the Fusion drive without any effort.

 

[gnasher729]

These fusion drives would be more attractive to me if they started at 256gb.

Doesn't make the slightest difference to most users. The huge majority of people don't access more than 128 GB of data _all the time_.