You obviously more technically-inclined that the average user. I'd be the same way in terms of getting the most speed from my setup as well. So perhaps the Fusion drive may not be the absolute fastest way to get that extra i/o compared to your setup, but if one can get "almost" the same speed, and remove all the technical headaches of doing a manual setup than it's a win-win for everyone right?
I think speed is relative. If you want your machine to be as fast as possible so you can carry out your work on that machine as efficiently (and frustration free) as possible, then I'd argue the Fusion drive is as fast as you are going to get. The time you waste playing with your set up (not what you REALLY are supposed to be doing, right?) will prevent you from doing what you should be doing.
If you want speed above all, for the sake of speed, no matter how long it takes to get there, well then the manual approach may well be better.
I think speed is relative. If you want your machine to be as fast as possible so you can carry out your work on that machine as efficiently (and frustration free) as possible, then I'd argue the Fusion drive is as fast as you are going to get. The time you waste playing with your set up (not what you REALLY are supposed to be doing, right?) will prevent you from doing what you should be doing.
If you want speed above all, for the sake of speed, no matter how long it takes to get there, well then the manual approach may well be better.
I'm for the less-headache approach. In my younger years, I used to tinker with things on such a low level, nowadays my time is more important for other things.
OH YES YOU CAN! You just pull the optical drive out, install a 2.5" drive carrier such as OWC's Data Doubler, install a 2.5" form factor SSD in the Data Doubler that is then installed where the removed optical drive resided and finally put the removed optical drive in an external, USB case. Yes, there is the issue of getting to get to the iMac internals, but I have done it and it is NOT all the difficult NOR prone to damaging ANYTHING. Just go out on iFixit and watch the appropriate video for your imac. FYI, I will be doing this exact thing on my daughter's mid 2012 iMac over the christmas holidays. I had planned on doing the symlink manual split, but after rolling my own Fusion drive on my MBP, I suspect that I will config hers as a Fusion Drive as well.
David
Well, I'd beleive this. But as sflocal points out, time is Kruggerrands. To those that feel comfortable cracking cases (and I did this successfully to an original mac mini without breaking anything, replaced the drive and felt pretty clever) I say bravo. But the mac mini I worked on had a dead drive, and ol PowerPC chip, and if I broke it, little was lost. It was due for the recycle bin, having served it purpose well. Value received.
My iMac is still going strong. If I break it trying to make an upgrade I dont "need" I'll be pissed. To the extent a technician would drop a fusion drive in for $50 plus parts, I might be interested. I don;t want another box on the desk to hold the optical drive, but fairly I think I might be beyond CDs and DVDs now. More plugs, more wires, more costs, more screwing around.
But for those tinkerers out there, I am curious - could a SSD go in the internal bay, and an external FW HDD be combined into a single fusion drive on 10.8?
The Momentus is just using that SSD as cache. The Apple Fusion solution actually shifts the most used files on a more permanent basis. This is a consumer grade version of something that has been happening in the corporate data center for a long time, but really no one else does this at the consumer level.
what does it mean? Fusion Drive has (roughly) 1TB+128GB capacity?
And whether the SSD part is 0-provision? Does the performance of it depend on how much of the capacity is used (as most SSDs do)?
Apple isn't being fair with the Fusion Drive. Yes, it's a cool invention, but they're not saying all the truth here: It looks like they've a huge stock of 128GB SSD and they don't know how to sell them. Otherwise, they'd allow you to choose between the Fusion Drive and 256/512GB SSD on the new iMac. But no, the new iMac (the 21inch model) is either Fusion Drive or 1TB HDD.
Or maybe they've better margins with the Fusion Drive than with 256/512GB SSD. I don't know, but they're not being fair here.
This policy isn't nice Apple. Yes, the Fusion is cool, but allow also pure 256/512 GB SSD for customers who just want SSD.
Unless you somehow access every file on your Mac with equal frequency over time, the Fusion Drive, as kludgey as it sounds, is actually a pretty good solution. Unless your running a huge database, which would benefit from a block-level SSD caching scheme (like the Momentus XT drives), the majority of people use something like 10% of their drive's files like 90% of the time, so Fusion should give users near-SSD like performance. The cost of going to a full SSD solution in equal capacity to a modern HDD is very expensive. Fusion is a great way to put 128GB to use without requiring that you pay for pure SSD storage.
Unless you somehow access every file on your Mac with equal frequency over time, the Fusion Drive, as kludgey as it sounds, is actually a pretty good solution. Unless your running a huge database, which would benefit from a block-level SSD caching scheme (like the Momentus XT drives), the majority of people use something like 10% of their drive's files like 90% of the time, so Fusion should give users near-SSD like performance. The cost of going to a full SSD solution in equal capacity to a modern HDD is very expensive. Fusion is a great way to put 128GB to use without requiring that you pay for pure SSD storage.
There are also certain types of file access affect HDDs and SSDs very differently. For instance, note the random read performance trouncing the very fast, for an HDD, WD VelociRapter drive, but for sequential writes SSDs are worse than traditional HDDs. Note that controllers and SSD tech has evolved quite a bit and personal HDDs are likely not has fast the VelociRapter tested but the point stands.
I plan on setting up Fusion Drive this weekend. I removed my ODD long ago and replaced it with an 80GB ntel X25 G2 and 1TB 7200RPM HDD so I've been wanting this for a very long time.
Unless you somehow access every file on your Mac with equal frequency over time, the Fusion Drive, as kludgey as it sounds, is actually a pretty good solution. Unless your running a huge database, which would benefit from a block-level SSD caching scheme (like the Momentus XT drives), the majority of people use something like 10% of their drive's files like 90% of the time, so Fusion should give users near-SSD like performance. The cost of going to a full SSD solution in equal capacity to a modern HDD is very expensive. Fusion is a great way to put 128GB to use without requiring that you pay for pure SSD storage.
That's right, but many users (me included) are fine with a 256 GB SSD (the one on my late 2010 MBA is about 50% full and I put on it everything I need), and the price of a 256GB SSD is not much higher than the Fusion. Many users who can afford the Fusion, would also be able to afford a 256 GB SSD (or even a 300 or 500 GB). So, why is Apple forcing everybody to go the Fusion instead on the new iMac? There's no technical reason, and there's no market reason either because I've seen a number of users complaining about the lack of SSD on the new iMac.
So, if there's neither a technical nor a market reason, the only reasons that come to my mind is what I said: Either Apple has plenty of 128 GB SSD stock and they don't know how to get rid of it, or (very likely) they have wider margins with the Fusion: the Fusion components are really cheap (128 SSD and 1T low speed HDD), and they're charging you a price closer to what they use to charge for a 256 GB SSD.
So, yes, your post is right about the benefits of the Fusion, but still, dropping pure SSD support from the iMac isn't nice from Apple, and it certainly must be because of a reason similar to what I said. Apple isn't playing fair with this.
To be honest I don't get all this moaning and groaning about Time Machine and Fusion Drive.
I was also a pro thinking that I can do all better manually until I had to take the responsibility for not only my data but also the data of my family members, employees and some hundreds of additional users.
In the following I want to provide some experience, excluding enterprise SAN solution because they are out of reach for most users and SMB customers.
I use Time Machine for Macs and the "equivalent" on Windows through external RAID drives hooked to the servers and didn't loose any data in the past years.
This doesn't mean that there were no issues but most of them can be avoided with some foresight.
First to drive failures. I normally replace drives in servers, hard pressed workstations or storage systems every three years. For normal clients I have defined a five year lifespan.
The replacement cycle of 3,5,6 years is also necessary to cover the average data growth between 200 % and 300 % in three years in my case.
In the past six years I had three failed drives, one in a RAID (bad production batch- RAID rebuild failed), one mobile drive (shock destruction) and one SSD (early model with weak controller firmware). All these issues were solved with Time Machine.
In addition I use it for the case users accidentally wipe or overwrite files or discover after weeks that the earlier version was much better.
In order to hold enough versions I use backup volumes with one and a half up to four times the space the device has. So Time Machine is a huge time saver and covers most of the common issues with the benefit that switching a Mac is also pretty painless especially because it's possible to clone TM-volumes and you can add e.g. a second backup volume for the same data at another location.
Of course there are some scenarios Time Machine (or similar solutions) doesn't cover and you need additional failover and backup scenarios in place. I just name a few I had in the past. Examples are a crashed SQL database, an ill running Exchange Server stumbling because of incompatibilities between the service pack and third party components, a defect distributed Active directory after a failed schema update and much more. In addition you might have to consider some additional backups at another location for cases like flood, fire, earth quakes etc.
Now some words to Fusion Drive. I think it also covers a specific but pretty common scenario.
I use mainly an i7 MBP with 256 GB SSD and an i7 iMac with 256 GB SSD and 1TB hdd.
I'm an early adopter of SSDs using them since 2008 and I'd never ever consider to go back to an hdd only equipped Mac.
The problem is that switching to SSD breaks the doubling space in two years scenario which was a huge pain in the a** for me. I have constantly to manage my files on the MBP because both volumes (Bootcamp and OSX) are getting out of space.
I have the same problem with the iMac. First it was OK to put some rarely used libraries and virtual machines on the hdd but by the time I got really annoyed by this time wasting actions.
In my opinion FD is the best solution for the common user wanting SSD speed but don't want's to go through all the hassles necessary fighting the "data growth cycle". It's a hands off solution and combined with Time Machine backups It should cover > 90 % of their needs.
I'm currently testing Fusion Drive and I can't wait to switch to it in order to skip the nasty data management obstacles preventing users from enjoying SSD speed. I don't care whether there will be cheaper, better SSDs in five years.
I want the performance and space now. In addition I'm sure that until then I'll need a three TB SSD.
It's more likely this will be a three or four TB Fusion Drive then.
That's right, but many users (me included) are fine with a 256 GB SSD (the one on my late 2010 MBA is about 50% full and I put on it everything I need), and the price of a 256GB SSD is not much higher than the Fusion. Many users who can afford the Fusion, would also be able to afford a 256 GB SSD (or even a 300 or 500 GB). So, why is Apple forcing everybody to go the Fusion instead on the new iMac? There's no technical reason, and there's no market reason either because I've seen a number of users complaining about the lack of SSD on the new iMac.
So, if there's neither a technical nor a market reason, the only reasons that come to my mind is what I said: Either Apple has plenty of 128 GB SSD stock and they don't know how to get rid of it, or (very likely) they have wider margins with the Fusion: the Fusion components are really cheap (128 SSD and 1T low speed HDD), and they're charging you a price closer to what they use to charge for a 256 GB SSD.
So, yes, your post is right about the benefits of the Fusion, but still, dropping pure SSD support from the iMac isn't nice from Apple, and it certainly must be because of a reason similar to what I said. Apple isn't playing fair with this.
It's great that you can many users are fine with a 256GB SSD, but what about people that want more than 256GB? I want more than 256GB. I want my 1TB HDD (might even upgrade to 1.5GB) for data but I also want fast boot and app launch times which is why I have removed my ODD and have an 80GB SSD+1TB HDD in my 13' MBP. FInally, after years of wishing I'll no longer have to put my ~/User folder on the HDD volume and get other files booting faster which should increase my overall performance.
Why should I not be able to have this simply because you don't want it?
Why state that Apple is forcing you to get the Fusion drive "on the new Mac"
Here is a screenshot from the Mac Mini page:
Here is one from upcoming 27" iMac:
The only place it's not a pre-order option for just an SSD if for the 21.5" iMac but that's most likely due to it have the SSD card so 128GB is the maximum they can put on the stick. That does not mean you can't go get a 2.5" SSD to put in the space unused by the HDD in a 21.5" iMac if you want, but I suggest just doing the smart thing buy just buying Fusion fro the start. It's the best of both world and you're complaining about it.
Apple could have offered their own 2.5" SSD but they seem to be moving away from that and going with the SSD cards. If you really don't want to have any HDD, again, you can install your own. It'll be released this month and iFixit will have detailed instructions on how to get into it.
PS: Why would you want to pay Apple $50 more for less space? As previously noted there are plenty of files that simply aren't going to get a reasonable benefit from being on an SSD. The only advantage is from the HDD being more likely to break in the first year but you should be backing up your data anyway and not just assume that it's all going to work fine just because you are using an SSD.
It's great that you can many users are fine with a 256GB SSD, but what about people that want more than 256GB? I want more than 256GB. I want my 1TB HDD (might even upgrade to 1.5GB) for data but I also want fast boot and app launch times which is why I have removed my ODD and have an 80GB SSD+1TB HDD in my 13' MBP. FInally, after years of wishing I'll no longer have to put my ~/User folder on the HDD volume and get other files booting faster which should increase my overall performance.
Why should I not be able to have this simply because you don't want it?
Why state that Apple is forcing you to get the Fusion drive "on the new Mac"
Here is a screenshot from the Mac Mini page:
Here is one from upcoming 27" iMac:
The only place it's not a pre-order option for just an SSD if for the 21.5" iMac but that's most likely due to it have the SSD card so 128GB is the maximum they can put on the stick. That does not mean you can't go get a 2.5" SSD to put in the space unused by the HDD in a 21.5" iMac if you want, but I suggest just doing the smart thing buy just buying Fusion fro the start. It's the best of both world and you're complaining about it.
Apple could have offered their own 2.5" SSD but they seem to be moving away from that and going with the SSD cards. If you really don't want to have any HDD, again, you can install your own. It'll be released this month and iFixit will have detailed instructions on how to get into it.
PS: Why would you want to pay Apple $50 more for less space? As previously noted there are plenty of files that simply aren't going to get a reasonable benefit from being on an SSD. The only advantage is from the HDD being more likely to break in the first year but you should be backing up your data anyway and not just assume that it's all going to work fine just because you are using an SSD.
I think his point is why simply one or the other. Which is a problem that many of us are coming back to with the iMac. Although the new design is sexy, it does sacrifice the ability to upgrade RAM on the 21.5 in model and it removed the ODD (not a problem for me, but some are upset about that). And why simply 1tb, or 3tb, or a 1tb fusion or 3tb fusion or 768gb of flash (which is going to be REALLY pricey.
Personally, I would prefer a 256 straight SSD drive, but I am also happy with the Fusion. I would also like to buy as little RAM as possible from Apple and then pay ~$200 less to upgrade it from somewhere else. *Note: I don't have the space for a 27in in my apartment #NYProblems
It's great that you can many users are fine with a 256GB SSD, but what about people that want more than 256GB? I want more than 256GB.
You can buy Fusion then, which I consider a good idea. Another alternative would be to plug as many external HDDs as you wish. You can really have a Petabyte of external storage if you wish so, and external ports are quite fast nowadays, btw.
Why should I not be able to have this simply because you don't want it?
It's the opposite: I'm happy the Fusion is there.
I (and others) just complain that they removed all SSD from the 21.5'' iMac, and all affordable SSD from the 28'' iMac, leaving only the 768 GB SSD.
As I said it's just the opposite: It's fine to have the Fusion option, but... why shouldn't we be able to have affordable SSD? It certainly looks like Apple has some interest here.
Why state that Apple is forcing you to get the Fusion drive "on the new Mac"
Here is a screenshot from the Mac Mini page:
I said the "new iMac", not the "new Mac". Yes, I'm aware the new Mac Mini has the 256GB SSD option.
Unfortunately, Apple decided not to put a discrete GPU on the 2012 Mac Mini, which makes me discard the Mini, and look at the iMac. But then, although the iMac has a decent GPU, it has worse disk options (at least for people who wants pure SSD).
If you really don't want to have any HDD, again, you can install your own. It'll be released this month and iFixit will have detailed instructions on how to get into it.
Too complicated. When I buy a Mac I expect it to come in its final form out of the box. If I've to buy a new super-thin iMac just to open it, lose money by throwing its HDD, and putting an SSD inside (while having the risk of causing damage to a brand-new iMac), then I certainly prefer the Hackintosh way.
PS: Why would you want to pay Apple $50 more for less space?
Because:
a) SSD is perfect for my use
b) I prefer 256GB more than 128GB+Slow-1T (If I've 256GB SSD, I can always buy a fast external HDD if I really need it -which is unlikely, but I always have such option)
c) Fusion is just a temporal compromise solution.
d) I prefer to not have any mechanical device at all on my computer (yes, there's a least one fan, and I lament it, but the HDD can be discarded, while the fan is more difficult to discard).
In conclusion, I'm happy with Apple releasing Fusion. But why is Apple forcing to go Fusion by dropping affordable SSD disks on the iMac is not fair.
The fusion drive is hardware and the software required for it is Mountain Lion 10.8.2. No reason whatsoever that the fusion drive would not work in an older Mac.
As to the previous poster, no way will Apple sell you just the drive. No sir, you need to purchase a new Mac, can't have one upgrading their old machine when you could buy a new one!
I put a fusion drive in my late 2008 MacBook Pro laptop last year. It's a Seagate Momentus XT 750GB drive. Not sure if mine has a 16MB or 32MB cache. I'm also not sure whether the Apple OS is making use of it the same way the new Macs do, but it does seem faster than the 7200RPM smaller drive that I had purchased with the machine. I bought it primarily because I needed more disc space, but since I was buying a new drive anyway, decided to go with the hybrid.
This was an incredibly easy installation and I think that Apple has made a big mistake making drives (and batteries/memory) non user-replaceable, simply in the name of making a slightly thinner laptop. (Frankly, I think they do it so that you're forced to buy a new machine when the battery dies or you need a larger HDD or more memory). I will defer buying a new laptop as long as I possibly can as a result. For people who do real work and need the storage, it's crazy to pay the price of a large SSD drive. Why would I want to double my cost (or more) in order to get a slight increase in performance? To "upgrade" from a 750GB HDD to a 512GB SSD in a new MacBook costs an extra $900. That's nuts IMO. I think I paid only $200 for the hybrid.
Hopefully the capacities of SSD drives will increase and prices will substantially decrease to HDD levels within the next year or two. You would think that with no mechanics and no motors, an SSD drive would be far less expensive to manufacture.
a) SSD is perfect for my use
b) I prefer 256GB more than 128GB+Slow-1T (If I've 256GB SSD, I can always buy a fast external HDD if I really need it -which is unlikely, but I always have such option)
c) Fusion is just a temporal compromise solution.
d) I prefer to not have any mechanical device at all on my computer (yes, there's a least one fan, and I lament it, but the HDD can be discarded, while the fan is more difficult to discard).
In conclusion, I'm happy with Apple releasing Fusion. But why is Apple forcing to go Fusion by dropping affordable SSD disks on the iMac is not fair.
It sucks that the 256GB SSD is perfect for you and Apple doesn't offer it, but in no way does that mean Apple should offer a specific configuration to suit your specific needs.
For years now I haven't been content with the ODD being included in my MBP or that until a couple weeks ago it was not possible to join my HDD and SSD into one logical drive that would intelligently manage itself but I never complained that it wasn't fair. That sounds ridiculous to me to even think that.
If you want a 21.5" iMac and you want a 256GB SSD you know what your options are. These are not inalienable rights that public corporations should be required to offer.
I put a fusion drive in my late 2008 MacBook Pro laptop last year. It's a Seagate Momentus XT 750GB drive. Not sure if mine has a 16MB or 32MB cache. I'm also not sure whether the Apple OS is making use of it the same way the new Macs do, but it does seem faster than the 7200RPM smaller drive that I had purchased with the machine. I bought it primarily because I needed more disc space, but since I was buying a new drive anyway, decided to go with the hybrid.
This was an incredibly easy installation and I think that Apple has made a big mistake making drives (and batteries/memory) non user-replaceable, simply in the name of making a slightly thinner laptop. (Frankly, I think they do it so that you're forced to buy a new machine when the battery dies or you need a larger HDD or more memory). I will defer buying a new laptop as long as I possibly can as a result. For people who do real work and need the storage, it's crazy to pay the price of a large SSD drive. Why would I want to double my cost (or more) in order to get a slight increase in performance? To "upgrade" from a 750GB HDD to a 512GB SSD in a new MacBook costs an extra $900. That's nuts IMO. I think I paid only $200 for the hybrid.
Hopefully the capacities of SSD drives will increase and prices will substantially decrease to HDD levels within the next year or two. You would think that with no mechanics and no motors, an SSD drive would be far less expensive to manufacture.
A hybrid HDD is not the same as Fusion Drive. Their goal is the same but they are fundamentally different.
Hopefully the capacities of SSD drives will increase and prices will substantially decrease to HDD levels within the next year or two. You would think that with no mechanics and no motors, an SSD drive would be far less expensive to manufacture.
It's not going to happen in the next year or two. SSD prices are still far more expensive than HDDs - and are likely to stay that way for years.
It's not going to happen in the next year or two. SSD prices are still far more expensive than HDDs - and are likely to stay that way for years.
No, SSD isn't expensive. In fact, it's way affordable, as of today, even with Apple pricing. Just some numbers, from a SSD supplier on Europe:
128 GB SSD Samsung -> 110 euro
256 GB SSD Samsung -> 200 euro
512 GB SSD OCZ Vertex4 -> 420 euro
(there're also very interesting prices for models in the 300GB range but I cannot find them now)
Add about 100 euro to those prices, and you'd get what Apple would ask you for such products:
128 GB SSD -> about 210 euro
256 GB SSD -> about 300 euro
512 GB SSD -> about 520 euro
Please enlighten me in what way such prices are expensive. I consider them very affordable. (you can make a top performing machine, with discrete GPU and 512GB SSD for about 2000 euro, and that's a very affordable price IMHO). But, of course, if Apple drops all these SSDs from the iMac and keeps the 768 GB SSD only, then it's obvious the SSD becomes magically expensive. Just drop the affordable sizes and then it's expensive. LOL.
By forcing you to just choose between Fusion and 768 GB SSD, it's obvious that Apple really wants to sell you the Fusion. Why? Don't really know, but it's not fair, because they're trying to convince you about the benefits of the Fusion by telling you "how expensive SSD is". And they show that by dropping affordable SSD sizes. Great.
256 GB SSD Samsung -> 200 euro
512 GB SSD OCZ Vertex4 -> 420 euro
(there're also very interesting prices for models in the 300GB range but I cannot find them now)
Add about 100 euro to those prices, and you'd get what Apple would ask you for such products:
128 GB SSD -> about 210 euro
256 GB SSD -> about 300 euro
512 GB SSD -> about 520 euro
Please enlighten me in what way such prices are expensive.
I don't know what Apple will charge, but a 3TB HDD can be easily had for $200 USD. I don't think you're getting one in SSD for under $2000 any time soon.
I think his point is why simply one or the other. Which is a problem that many of us are coming back to with the iMac. Although the new design is sexy, it does sacrifice the ability to upgrade RAM on the 21.5 in model and it removed the ODD (not a problem for me, but some are upset about that). And why simply 1tb, or 3tb, or a 1tb fusion or 3tb fusion or 768gb of flash (which is going to be REALLY pricey.
Personally, I would prefer a 256 straight SSD drive, but I am also happy with the Fusion. I would also like to buy as little RAM as possible from Apple and then pay ~$200 less to upgrade it from somewhere else. *Note: I don't have the space for a 27in in my apartment #NYProblems
It might just be the 21" iMac users are generally not the kind that are power users. Non-power users generally don't need a lot of memory. There will always be exceptions, but Apple only chases down the exceptions so far if they have other objectives.
I wouldn't be surprised if the memory is just harder to get to rather than impossible to upgrade. I'm interested in seeing the tear-downs to see what they really are like inside to know for sure.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
You obviously more technically-inclined that the average user. I'd be the same way in terms of getting the most speed from my setup as well. So perhaps the Fusion drive may not be the absolute fastest way to get that extra i/o compared to your setup, but if one can get "almost" the same speed, and remove all the technical headaches of doing a manual setup than it's a win-win for everyone right?
I think speed is relative. If you want your machine to be as fast as possible so you can carry out your work on that machine as efficiently (and frustration free) as possible, then I'd argue the Fusion drive is as fast as you are going to get. The time you waste playing with your set up (not what you REALLY are supposed to be doing, right?) will prevent you from doing what you should be doing.
If you want speed above all, for the sake of speed, no matter how long it takes to get there, well then the manual approach may well be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
I think speed is relative. If you want your machine to be as fast as possible so you can carry out your work on that machine as efficiently (and frustration free) as possible, then I'd argue the Fusion drive is as fast as you are going to get. The time you waste playing with your set up (not what you REALLY are supposed to be doing, right?) will prevent you from doing what you should be doing.
If you want speed above all, for the sake of speed, no matter how long it takes to get there, well then the manual approach may well be better.
I'm for the less-headache approach. In my younger years, I used to tinker with things on such a low level, nowadays my time is more important for other things.
That's like saying iTunes isn't software because it's stored on a drive, needs a CPU, RAM, etc. to work.
Fusion is OS level software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtidmore
OH YES YOU CAN! You just pull the optical drive out, install a 2.5" drive carrier such as OWC's Data Doubler, install a 2.5" form factor SSD in the Data Doubler that is then installed where the removed optical drive resided and finally put the removed optical drive in an external, USB case. Yes, there is the issue of getting to get to the iMac internals, but I have done it and it is NOT all the difficult NOR prone to damaging ANYTHING. Just go out on iFixit and watch the appropriate video for your imac. FYI, I will be doing this exact thing on my daughter's mid 2012 iMac over the christmas holidays. I had planned on doing the symlink manual split, but after rolling my own Fusion drive on my MBP, I suspect that I will config hers as a Fusion Drive as well.
David
Well, I'd beleive this. But as sflocal points out, time is Kruggerrands. To those that feel comfortable cracking cases (and I did this successfully to an original mac mini without breaking anything, replaced the drive and felt pretty clever) I say bravo. But the mac mini I worked on had a dead drive, and ol PowerPC chip, and if I broke it, little was lost. It was due for the recycle bin, having served it purpose well. Value received.
My iMac is still going strong. If I break it trying to make an upgrade I dont "need" I'll be pissed. To the extent a technician would drop a fusion drive in for $50 plus parts, I might be interested. I don;t want another box on the desk to hold the optical drive, but fairly I think I might be beyond CDs and DVDs now. More plugs, more wires, more costs, more screwing around.
But for those tinkerers out there, I am curious - could a SSD go in the internal bay, and an external FW HDD be combined into a single fusion drive on 10.8?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's like saying iTunes isn't software because it's stored on a drive, needs a CPU, RAM, etc. to work.
Fusion is OS level software.
Speaking of iTunes... [looks at calendar]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
The Momentus is just using that SSD as cache. The Apple Fusion solution actually shifts the most used files on a more permanent basis. This is a consumer grade version of something that has been happening in the corporate data center for a long time, but really no one else does this at the consumer level.
what does it mean? Fusion Drive has (roughly) 1TB+128GB capacity?
And whether the SSD part is 0-provision? Does the performance of it depend on how much of the capacity is used (as most SSDs do)?
Originally Posted by eightzero
Speaking of iTunes... [looks at calendar]
21 days left.
Unless you somehow access every file on your Mac with equal frequency over time, the Fusion Drive, as kludgey as it sounds, is actually a pretty good solution. Unless your running a huge database, which would benefit from a block-level SSD caching scheme (like the Momentus XT drives), the majority of people use something like 10% of their drive's files like 90% of the time, so Fusion should give users near-SSD like performance. The cost of going to a full SSD solution in equal capacity to a modern HDD is very expensive. Fusion is a great way to put 128GB to use without requiring that you pay for pure SSD storage.
There are also certain types of file access affect HDDs and SSDs very differently. For instance, note the random read performance trouncing the very fast, for an HDD, WD VelociRapter drive, but for sequential writes SSDs are worse than traditional HDDs. Note that controllers and SSD tech has evolved quite a bit and personal HDDs are likely not has fast the VelociRapter tested but the point stands.
I plan on setting up Fusion Drive this weekend. I removed my ODD long ago and replaced it with an 80GB ntel X25 G2 and 1TB 7200RPM HDD so I've been wanting this for a very long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Unless you somehow access every file on your Mac with equal frequency over time, the Fusion Drive, as kludgey as it sounds, is actually a pretty good solution. Unless your running a huge database, which would benefit from a block-level SSD caching scheme (like the Momentus XT drives), the majority of people use something like 10% of their drive's files like 90% of the time, so Fusion should give users near-SSD like performance. The cost of going to a full SSD solution in equal capacity to a modern HDD is very expensive. Fusion is a great way to put 128GB to use without requiring that you pay for pure SSD storage.
That's right, but many users (me included) are fine with a 256 GB SSD (the one on my late 2010 MBA is about 50% full and I put on it everything I need), and the price of a 256GB SSD is not much higher than the Fusion. Many users who can afford the Fusion, would also be able to afford a 256 GB SSD (or even a 300 or 500 GB). So, why is Apple forcing everybody to go the Fusion instead on the new iMac? There's no technical reason, and there's no market reason either because I've seen a number of users complaining about the lack of SSD on the new iMac.
So, if there's neither a technical nor a market reason, the only reasons that come to my mind is what I said: Either Apple has plenty of 128 GB SSD stock and they don't know how to get rid of it, or (very likely) they have wider margins with the Fusion: the Fusion components are really cheap (128 SSD and 1T low speed HDD), and they're charging you a price closer to what they use to charge for a 256 GB SSD.
So, yes, your post is right about the benefits of the Fusion, but still, dropping pure SSD support from the iMac isn't nice from Apple, and it certainly must be because of a reason similar to what I said. Apple isn't playing fair with this.
To be honest I don't get all this moaning and groaning about Time Machine and Fusion Drive.
I was also a pro thinking that I can do all better manually until I had to take the responsibility for not only my data but also the data of my family members, employees and some hundreds of additional users.
In the following I want to provide some experience, excluding enterprise SAN solution because they are out of reach for most users and SMB customers.
I use Time Machine for Macs and the "equivalent" on Windows through external RAID drives hooked to the servers and didn't loose any data in the past years.
This doesn't mean that there were no issues but most of them can be avoided with some foresight.
First to drive failures. I normally replace drives in servers, hard pressed workstations or storage systems every three years. For normal clients I have defined a five year lifespan.
The replacement cycle of 3,5,6 years is also necessary to cover the average data growth between 200 % and 300 % in three years in my case.
In the past six years I had three failed drives, one in a RAID (bad production batch- RAID rebuild failed), one mobile drive (shock destruction) and one SSD (early model with weak controller firmware). All these issues were solved with Time Machine.
In addition I use it for the case users accidentally wipe or overwrite files or discover after weeks that the earlier version was much better.
In order to hold enough versions I use backup volumes with one and a half up to four times the space the device has. So Time Machine is a huge time saver and covers most of the common issues with the benefit that switching a Mac is also pretty painless especially because it's possible to clone TM-volumes and you can add e.g. a second backup volume for the same data at another location.
Of course there are some scenarios Time Machine (or similar solutions) doesn't cover and you need additional failover and backup scenarios in place. I just name a few I had in the past. Examples are a crashed SQL database, an ill running Exchange Server stumbling because of incompatibilities between the service pack and third party components, a defect distributed Active directory after a failed schema update and much more. In addition you might have to consider some additional backups at another location for cases like flood, fire, earth quakes etc.
Now some words to Fusion Drive. I think it also covers a specific but pretty common scenario.
I use mainly an i7 MBP with 256 GB SSD and an i7 iMac with 256 GB SSD and 1TB hdd.
I'm an early adopter of SSDs using them since 2008 and I'd never ever consider to go back to an hdd only equipped Mac.
The problem is that switching to SSD breaks the doubling space in two years scenario which was a huge pain in the a** for me. I have constantly to manage my files on the MBP because both volumes (Bootcamp and OSX) are getting out of space.
I have the same problem with the iMac. First it was OK to put some rarely used libraries and virtual machines on the hdd but by the time I got really annoyed by this time wasting actions.
In my opinion FD is the best solution for the common user wanting SSD speed but don't want's to go through all the hassles necessary fighting the "data growth cycle". It's a hands off solution and combined with Time Machine backups It should cover > 90 % of their needs.
I'm currently testing Fusion Drive and I can't wait to switch to it in order to skip the nasty data management obstacles preventing users from enjoying SSD speed. I don't care whether there will be cheaper, better SSDs in five years.
I want the performance and space now. In addition I'm sure that until then I'll need a three TB SSD.
It's more likely this will be a three or four TB Fusion Drive then.
It's great that you can many users are fine with a 256GB SSD, but what about people that want more than 256GB? I want more than 256GB. I want my 1TB HDD (might even upgrade to 1.5GB) for data but I also want fast boot and app launch times which is why I have removed my ODD and have an 80GB SSD+1TB HDD in my 13' MBP. FInally, after years of wishing I'll no longer have to put my ~/User folder on the HDD volume and get other files booting faster which should increase my overall performance.
Why should I not be able to have this simply because you don't want it?
Why state that Apple is forcing you to get the Fusion drive "on the new Mac"
Here is a screenshot from the Mac Mini page:
Here is one from upcoming 27" iMac:
The only place it's not a pre-order option for just an SSD if for the 21.5" iMac but that's most likely due to it have the SSD card so 128GB is the maximum they can put on the stick. That does not mean you can't go get a 2.5" SSD to put in the space unused by the HDD in a 21.5" iMac if you want, but I suggest just doing the smart thing buy just buying Fusion fro the start. It's the best of both world and you're complaining about it.
Apple could have offered their own 2.5" SSD but they seem to be moving away from that and going with the SSD cards. If you really don't want to have any HDD, again, you can install your own. It'll be released this month and iFixit will have detailed instructions on how to get into it.
PS: Why would you want to pay Apple $50 more for less space? As previously noted there are plenty of files that simply aren't going to get a reasonable benefit from being on an SSD. The only advantage is from the HDD being more likely to break in the first year but you should be backing up your data anyway and not just assume that it's all going to work fine just because you are using an SSD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's great that you can many users are fine with a 256GB SSD, but what about people that want more than 256GB? I want more than 256GB. I want my 1TB HDD (might even upgrade to 1.5GB) for data but I also want fast boot and app launch times which is why I have removed my ODD and have an 80GB SSD+1TB HDD in my 13' MBP. FInally, after years of wishing I'll no longer have to put my ~/User folder on the HDD volume and get other files booting faster which should increase my overall performance.
Why should I not be able to have this simply because you don't want it?
Why state that Apple is forcing you to get the Fusion drive "on the new Mac"
Here is a screenshot from the Mac Mini page:
Here is one from upcoming 27" iMac:
The only place it's not a pre-order option for just an SSD if for the 21.5" iMac but that's most likely due to it have the SSD card so 128GB is the maximum they can put on the stick. That does not mean you can't go get a 2.5" SSD to put in the space unused by the HDD in a 21.5" iMac if you want, but I suggest just doing the smart thing buy just buying Fusion fro the start. It's the best of both world and you're complaining about it.
Apple could have offered their own 2.5" SSD but they seem to be moving away from that and going with the SSD cards. If you really don't want to have any HDD, again, you can install your own. It'll be released this month and iFixit will have detailed instructions on how to get into it.
PS: Why would you want to pay Apple $50 more for less space? As previously noted there are plenty of files that simply aren't going to get a reasonable benefit from being on an SSD. The only advantage is from the HDD being more likely to break in the first year but you should be backing up your data anyway and not just assume that it's all going to work fine just because you are using an SSD.
I think his point is why simply one or the other. Which is a problem that many of us are coming back to with the iMac. Although the new design is sexy, it does sacrifice the ability to upgrade RAM on the 21.5 in model and it removed the ODD (not a problem for me, but some are upset about that). And why simply 1tb, or 3tb, or a 1tb fusion or 3tb fusion or 768gb of flash (which is going to be REALLY pricey.
Personally, I would prefer a 256 straight SSD drive, but I am also happy with the Fusion. I would also like to buy as little RAM as possible from Apple and then pay ~$200 less to upgrade it from somewhere else. *Note: I don't have the space for a 27in in my apartment #NYProblems
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's great that you can many users are fine with a 256GB SSD, but what about people that want more than 256GB? I want more than 256GB.
You can buy Fusion then, which I consider a good idea. Another alternative would be to plug as many external HDDs as you wish. You can really have a Petabyte of external storage if you wish so, and external ports are quite fast nowadays, btw.
Why should I not be able to have this simply because you don't want it?
It's the opposite: I'm happy the Fusion is there.
I (and others) just complain that they removed all SSD from the 21.5'' iMac, and all affordable SSD from the 28'' iMac, leaving only the 768 GB SSD.
As I said it's just the opposite: It's fine to have the Fusion option, but... why shouldn't we be able to have affordable SSD? It certainly looks like Apple has some interest here.
Why state that Apple is forcing you to get the Fusion drive "on the new Mac"
Here is a screenshot from the Mac Mini page:
I said the "new iMac", not the "new Mac". Yes, I'm aware the new Mac Mini has the 256GB SSD option.
Unfortunately, Apple decided not to put a discrete GPU on the 2012 Mac Mini, which makes me discard the Mini, and look at the iMac. But then, although the iMac has a decent GPU, it has worse disk options (at least for people who wants pure SSD).
If you really don't want to have any HDD, again, you can install your own. It'll be released this month and iFixit will have detailed instructions on how to get into it.
Too complicated. When I buy a Mac I expect it to come in its final form out of the box. If I've to buy a new super-thin iMac just to open it, lose money by throwing its HDD, and putting an SSD inside (while having the risk of causing damage to a brand-new iMac), then I certainly prefer the Hackintosh way.
PS: Why would you want to pay Apple $50 more for less space?
Because:
a) SSD is perfect for my use
b) I prefer 256GB more than 128GB+Slow-1T (If I've 256GB SSD, I can always buy a fast external HDD if I really need it -which is unlikely, but I always have such option)
c) Fusion is just a temporal compromise solution.
d) I prefer to not have any mechanical device at all on my computer (yes, there's a least one fan, and I lament it, but the HDD can be discarded, while the fan is more difficult to discard).
In conclusion, I'm happy with Apple releasing Fusion. But why is Apple forcing to go Fusion by dropping affordable SSD disks on the iMac is not fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek
The fusion drive is hardware and the software required for it is Mountain Lion 10.8.2. No reason whatsoever that the fusion drive would not work in an older Mac.
As to the previous poster, no way will Apple sell you just the drive. No sir, you need to purchase a new Mac, can't have one upgrading their old machine when you could buy a new one!
I put a fusion drive in my late 2008 MacBook Pro laptop last year. It's a Seagate Momentus XT 750GB drive. Not sure if mine has a 16MB or 32MB cache. I'm also not sure whether the Apple OS is making use of it the same way the new Macs do, but it does seem faster than the 7200RPM smaller drive that I had purchased with the machine. I bought it primarily because I needed more disc space, but since I was buying a new drive anyway, decided to go with the hybrid.
This was an incredibly easy installation and I think that Apple has made a big mistake making drives (and batteries/memory) non user-replaceable, simply in the name of making a slightly thinner laptop. (Frankly, I think they do it so that you're forced to buy a new machine when the battery dies or you need a larger HDD or more memory). I will defer buying a new laptop as long as I possibly can as a result. For people who do real work and need the storage, it's crazy to pay the price of a large SSD drive. Why would I want to double my cost (or more) in order to get a slight increase in performance? To "upgrade" from a 750GB HDD to a 512GB SSD in a new MacBook costs an extra $900. That's nuts IMO. I think I paid only $200 for the hybrid.
Hopefully the capacities of SSD drives will increase and prices will substantially decrease to HDD levels within the next year or two. You would think that with no mechanics and no motors, an SSD drive would be far less expensive to manufacture.
It sucks that the 256GB SSD is perfect for you and Apple doesn't offer it, but in no way does that mean Apple should offer a specific configuration to suit your specific needs.
For years now I haven't been content with the ODD being included in my MBP or that until a couple weeks ago it was not possible to join my HDD and SSD into one logical drive that would intelligently manage itself but I never complained that it wasn't fair. That sounds ridiculous to me to even think that.
If you want a 21.5" iMac and you want a 256GB SSD you know what your options are. These are not inalienable rights that public corporations should be required to offer.
A hybrid HDD is not the same as Fusion Drive. Their goal is the same but they are fundamentally different.
It's not going to happen in the next year or two. SSD prices are still far more expensive than HDDs - and are likely to stay that way for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It's not going to happen in the next year or two. SSD prices are still far more expensive than HDDs - and are likely to stay that way for years.
No, SSD isn't expensive. In fact, it's way affordable, as of today, even with Apple pricing. Just some numbers, from a SSD supplier on Europe:
128 GB SSD Samsung -> 110 euro
256 GB SSD Samsung -> 200 euro
512 GB SSD OCZ Vertex4 -> 420 euro
(there're also very interesting prices for models in the 300GB range but I cannot find them now)
Add about 100 euro to those prices, and you'd get what Apple would ask you for such products:
128 GB SSD -> about 210 euro
256 GB SSD -> about 300 euro
512 GB SSD -> about 520 euro
Please enlighten me in what way such prices are expensive. I consider them very affordable. (you can make a top performing machine, with discrete GPU and 512GB SSD for about 2000 euro, and that's a very affordable price IMHO). But, of course, if Apple drops all these SSDs from the iMac and keeps the 768 GB SSD only, then it's obvious the SSD becomes magically expensive. Just drop the affordable sizes and then it's expensive. LOL.
By forcing you to just choose between Fusion and 768 GB SSD, it's obvious that Apple really wants to sell you the Fusion. Why? Don't really know, but it's not fair, because they're trying to convince you about the benefits of the Fusion by telling you "how expensive SSD is". And they show that by dropping affordable SSD sizes. Great.
I don't know what Apple will charge, but a 3TB HDD can be easily had for $200 USD. I don't think you're getting one in SSD for under $2000 any time soon.
It might just be the 21" iMac users are generally not the kind that are power users. Non-power users generally don't need a lot of memory. There will always be exceptions, but Apple only chases down the exceptions so far if they have other objectives.
I wouldn't be surprised if the memory is just harder to get to rather than impossible to upgrade. I'm interested in seeing the tear-downs to see what they really are like inside to know for sure.