The whole AnandTech write up is good. He concludes with, "While the Momentus XT isn't quite as fast as an SSD, it's a significant improvement over the mechanical drives found in notebooks today. [...] If you're not going to buy an SSD for your notebook, then definitely go for the Momentus XT. I'd almost go as far as to say it's a great option for desktop users but unless you're on a budget you're probably better served by a small SSD + 3.5" drive on the desktop." Which is exactly what Apple did but with some intelligence in the OS to make more seamless for the user. It's a good thing.
Well, I put a Momentus XT in my MBP and wasn't impressed with the performance. It did probably feel a bit faster, but hardly anything to write home about. OTOH, when I switched from a platter drive to SSD, it was immediately noticeable and vastly superior. I haven't yet used a Fusion drive, so I can't comment on that, but I have to disagree with saying that the XT isn't QUITE as fast as an SSD (implying that it's comparable) and that it's a significant improvement over mechanical drives. In my experience, neither statement is true.
Maybe there's something about my configuration. Hybrid drives get a lot of rave reviews, but I just didn't see that much improvement.
Well, I put a Momentus XT in my MBP and wasn't impressed with the performance. It did probably feel a bit faster, but hardly anything to write home about. OTOH, when I switched from a platter drive to SSD, it was immediately noticeable and vastly superior. I haven't yet used a Fusion drive, so I can't comment on that, but I have to disagree with saying that the XT isn't QUITE as fast as an SSD (implying that it's comparable) and that it's a significant improvement over mechanical drives. In my experience, neither statement is true.
Maybe there's something about my configuration. Hybrid drives get a lot of rave reviews, but I just didn't see that much improvement.
Anand does show that subsequent boot and app loading times were lowered with repetition but it does seem like he was being kind to Seagate.
Also: Good luck on configuring a 2GB or even 1GB graphics card to anything other than the most expensive iMac model.
At some point I feel 1 GB will be standard though by then it will not be enough, 2 GB will be standard, and 4 GB will be available as the highest end option.
we do know that the OS will determine which files will remain on which drive and it will do so more intelligently than simply looking at frequency of use.
They are able to preload the OS and apps onto the SSD when you buy it, which other setups can't do but I doubt they'll have priorities for certain files over others such as always keeping the system folder on there. The benchmark test from before showed a large file transfer of over 128GB and it was SSD speed for most of the transfer and then dropped to the HDD speed so I'd have to assume they flushed the entire SSD first somehow. If the SSD gets filled up, as soon as you copy something else onto the Fusion drive, it will have to just send it to the HDD like other setups.
Check out those random reads and writes between SSDs, HDDs, and hybrid-HDD. As you note, since the hybrid-HDD is just cache it's going to act pretty much like an HDD.
That's the current hybrid drive though. It doesn't use SRT, though it's supposed to store frequently used data, you just can't keep very much data in under 8GB. It's going to get confusing because the ones coming in next year will be called hybrid drives but use an entirely different setup.
2010 - hybrid drives launched, same as what we have now with just a 256MB-8GB cache and some adaptive memory to check frequent blocks - not enough flash, not fast, not like Fusion
2011 - Intel SRT, merges up to 64GB SSD cache with HDD but requires driver/BIOS-level management
2012 - Apple Fusion merges any SSD with HDD (4GB cache) - OS-level management
2013 - new hybrid drives with SRT (firmware-level), likely merge 32-64GB SSD with HDD, new internal management that can do better caching
Apple's advantage over an SRT setup will be the SSD size. If the cache is too small as tested here:
it can end up having no benefit at all. It's not clear if the caching management will differ significantly between them. I'd expect Fusion to put the most frequently accessed blocks on just like SRT. If future hybrid drives only come with 32GB though, Apple's 128GB will be a huge advantage.
They all seem to be working towards the same goal but Apple's setup will work best for the most part and they were first to use OS-level management and a large SSD. That's the benefit they get from selling both the software and hardware.
For end users, if the 2013 hybrid drives use a 64GB cache, I'd expect them to see mostly the same kind of results you get from Fusion and there are some benefits like it won't have any software incompatibilities like Fusion does and it will work on any OS. I'm not sure if you'll be able to boot Linux on a Fusion drive. You can also put multiple drives in together - for example the Mac Pro can have 4 SRT hybrid drives in RAID10.
As usual when Apple does something new, people are quick to point out it's not new at all but just like with the iPhone, while smartphones preceeded it, they weren't done properly. No implementation of a hybrid system prior to Fusion has really shown a significant benefit and if it has, has been difficult to setup. Apple has made it easy to configure and beneficial from the day you buy the machine and they've made the right choice with SSD size.
Then why do they only offer the 1 TB solution and the price of 250.00 is a little high for 1 TB when compared to other Hybrids, 100 dollars less. I still think it's more cost effective to use two separate drives as well as a faster solution. A small 64GB SSD for the system and HDD for data. You can even get a Sandisk/Crucial/OCZ 256 GB now for 180.00, leave the base configuration of 1 TB and just buy a dual HD mounting kit for 50 and still be under the 250.00.
I think the problem with many suggestions suggestions like this is that they forget that the average Mac user is not a geek and spends zero time in forums such as this. Most people don't see the point or want the hassle of running two drives on the same machine. I'm not even sure that most people want the hassle of thinking about disk drives at all.
Then why do they only offer the 1 TB solution and the price of 250.00 is a little high for 1 TB when compared to other Hybrids, 100 dollars less. I still think it's more cost effective to use two separate drives as well as a faster solution. A small 64GB SSD for the system and HDD for data. You can even get a Sandisk/Crucial/OCZ 256 GB now for 180.00, leave the base configuration of 1 TB and just buy a dual HD mounting kit for 50 and still be under the 250.00.
You are describing what Fusion Drive is: two separate drives.
Previous post should have read, "Thanks sol AND dtidmore, now you BOTH have given me..."
So yes, David, thanks for the comment. Currently I have a JBOD in my Mac, but was thinking about getting fast Raptors or something. Maybe it's better to try to get speed gains through Core Storage rather than spending money on new HDD's while I can get a similar speed increase through software. Choices choices
I have a 300GB Raptor as my boot drive. There's only a small difference in performance compared to my other HDD's which are 7200rpm. The price you pay for the Raptor is not worth it for the small performance boost in my opinion, but I'm just a casual user. I'm so looking forward to getting my iMac with 3TB fusion drive. Based on what I've read, the fusion drive should smoke the Raptor but I won't be able to verify this until I receive my iMac.
I will be able to report how the computer performs after it is filled up well past the 64GB size of the SSD (I have a boatload of video files, movies, etc. haha). Nobody seems to have info on this and it's all I'm interested in. Of course, if your drive contents are less than 64GB, then it's safe to assume that the entirety of your drive contents are all on the flash drive for maximum performance.
The real question comes into play, when apps have to be stored on the HDD. What kind of performance hit will there be when that app, that you rarely use, has to be opened up? Nobody seems to have the answer to this question, but I'm not shy about answering it.
This makes me wonder if you could setup something tiny like a thumb drive (or some other drive) with a primary drive so that if the thumb drive was removed the system would be able to boot at all.
Can external USB, FireWire, or Thunderbolt hard drives be added to Fusion Drive?
An external drive cannot be used as part of a Fusion Drive volume. Fusion Drive is designed to work with an internal hard disk drive and internal flash storage.
I have a 300GB Raptor as my boot drive. There's only a small difference in performance compared to my other HDD's which are 7200rpm. The price you pay for the Raptor is not worth it for the small performance boost in my opinion, but I'm just a casual user. I'm so looking forward to getting my iMac with 3TB fusion drive. Based on what I've read, the fusion drive should smoke the Raptor but I won't be able to verify this until I receive my iMac.
I will be able to report how the computer performs after it is filled up well past the 64GB size of the SSD (I have a boatload of video files, movies, etc. haha). Nobody seems to have info on this and it's all I'm interested in. Of course, if your drive contents are less than 64GB, then it's safe to assume that the entirety of your drive contents are all on the flash drive for maximum performance.
Booting from HDD will 'always be slow' so your moving to SSD will be a pleasant experience. I already boot from (PCIe)SSD and was thinking about replacing my JBOD to 3x Rapture RAID0 (with a TM in the 4th bay and rotating external backup for off-site).
The real question comes into play, when apps have to be stored on the HDD. What kind of performance hit will there be when that app, that you rarely use, has to be opened up? Nobody seems to have the answer to this question, but I'm not shy about answering it.
That is precisely what I want to know as well, before setting up a FD. My Aperture now is running from SSD, including all the Thumbs, Previews and Masters. And even though I might not look at all the thousands of Thumbs and Previews I do want them to be on the SSD permanently. I haven't found a way to tell CS to leave file / dir alone and keep it on the SSD. Goes the other way as well; no need for regular listened to .mp3's to move to SSD.
LOL My comment reads like a command. It should be taken as a suggestion.
Hahaha!
Half-Ironman. Wow! Is that in the Netherlands or are you traveling for it? I have a friend doing the Paris marathon in a few months.
Right now I'm just trying to get to this point of finishing 1.2, 56, 13.1 miles of swimming, cycling and running. If I succeed, I might want to do it officially. Berlin is closest, but I think I'll do it in Aix en Provence. That's only 130km from Mont Ventoux, so I can make it a workout holiday (< insert smiley here)
Best wished to your friend. I could *never* do a marathon! And thanks for the edit's in the previous FD post.
I think the Sol was thinking that the thumb drive could act as a security key. No thumb drive, no boot as the boot Fusion Drive would be incomplete. You certainly can have a thumb drive as part of a Fusion Drive (could even be partitioned using Disk Utility so that only a tiny SLIVER of its space was added into the Fusion volume). It could be the third disk added into a Fusion drive. If even a kilobyte of space is allocated from the thumb drive to a Fusion drive and the thumb drive is removed, the Fusion drive will be incomplete and no longer bootable. So in this way, you could actually use the thumb drive as a security key.
Phil,
I think the Sol was thinking that the thumb drive could act as a security key. No thumb drive, no boot as the boot Fusion Drive would be incomplete. You certainly can have a thumb drive as part of a Fusion Drive (could even be partitioned using Disk Utility so that only a tiny SLIVER of its space was added into the Fusion volume). It could be the third disk added into a Fusion drive. If even a kilobyte of space is allocated from the thumb drive to a Fusion drive and the thumb drive is removed, the Fusion drive will be incomplete and no longer bootable. So in this way, you could actually use the thumb drive as a security key.
David T
Security key! I couldn't think of the proper term when trying to describe my scenario. Thank you. Sorry if I was unclear, Phil.
Booting from HDD will 'always be slow' so your moving to SSD will be a pleasant experience. I already boot from (PCIe)SSD and was thinking about replacing my JBOD to 3x Rapture RAID0 (with a TM in the 4th bay and rotating external backup for off-site).
That is precisely what I want to know as well, before setting up a FD. My Aperture now is running from SSD, including all the Thumbs, Previews and Masters. And even though I might not look at all the thousands of Thumbs and Previews I do want them to be on the SSD permanently. I haven't found a way to tell CS to leave file / dir alone and keep it on the SSD. Goes the other way as well; no need for regular listened to .mp3's to move to SSD.
Phil,
One way of forcing that the desired files remain on the SSD is to hard partition the SSD using disk utility before starting the FD setup and specifying ONLY the portion of the SSD that you want for FD to be included (ie exactly as I did to create an isolated swap/hibernation partition on the HDD). This would leave whatever portion of the SSD you desire outside of FD. Yes, you would have to either point Aperture to the SSD partition OR symlink it but this would accomplish your wishes to ensure that certain items are always on the SSD. I would choose a SSD large enough to allow plenty of growth room for those files that you wish to remain SSD bound as well as at least another 128GB for FD. There does NOT seem to be anything concrete about the necessity of 128GB SSD for FD, but as Apple has set that as the lower boundary, it is probably a good thing to stay at or above that number.
Phil,
One way of forcing that the desired files remain on the SSD is to hard partition the SSD using disk utility before starting the FD setup and specifying ONLY the portion of the SSD that you want for FD to be included (ie exactly as I did to create an isolated swap/hibernation partition on the HDD).
David T
That (!) is simplicity to the max that I just didn't see it; thanks much! The config of a FD setup is going to make it quite vulnerable with 1xSSD + 2xHDD. But if were to buy the 3 Raptors and create a RAID1 with my current separate SSD it would be just as vulnerable, if not more. On second thought I'm going to:
keep 1 HDD dedicated to iTunes Media
use 1 NAND stick on the PCIe SSD card for the FD
use the other NAND stick on the PCIe SSD card for my Aperture Library
create a FD from the other HDD and the (half)SSD
just maybe throw in the Security Key setup for kicks. Although it's a Mac Pro, not something you'd loose easily - lol
Here's the pic of the PCIe where you can see it has two sticks. It's the only bootable PCIe SSD available, and yes, you can create a RAID1, but I'm using it as a RAID0:
Security key! I couldn't think of the proper term when trying to describe my scenario. Thank you. Sorry if I was unclear, Phil.
No no, it was clear to me what you wanted to accomplish. I just misunderstood the AppleKB article in this respect. Will you set it all up like this if/when you get the new iMac? I'd make certain you duplicate that thumb drive, nee, Security Key.
I know this is sort of late mentioning but I thought the original goal of the fusion drive was so that when loading a doucment(page document for say), was going to be the first page loaded in flash, yet the rest load on the hard drive while viewing it, So this would be best set up, you know what I mean. Still it is a improved setup instead the most viewed documents.
…I thought the original goal of the fusion drive was so that when loading a doucment(page document for say), was going to be the first page loaded in flash, yet the rest load on the hard drive while viewing it.
Well, the entire file is all going to be in one place within the drive, and that's on the SSD (if you use it frequently enough) or the HDD (if you don't).
You're thinking about the process of caching as applied to old hard drives, extended to "hybrid drives". For example, Seagate makes a "hybrid drive" that combines a regular spinning drive and a little NAND chip. This is all built into one piece, and the NAND is only used for temporarily caching files, like you've said. Fusion Drive is for the actual storage of files.
Well, the entire file is all going to be in one place within the drive, and that's on the SSD (if you use it frequently enough) or the HDD (if you don't).
I believe FD to work at the block level, not file level. A bit like how iWork documents work with iCloud (? same difference)
I read a very good article over at [URL=http://www.anandtech.com/show/6679/a-month-with-apples-fusion-drive]AT[/URL] and made the decision to [B]not[/B] make use use of FD. It's really great tech, works like a charm and will be beneficial to many. Just not in my case: I have OSX + /Applications + my Home drive all on SSD [I]except[/I] for my iTunes Media folder. That's not only way too large @ 500+GB but also useless to have on SSD. Sure, I could partition everything to keep specific stuff on HDD and other files specifically on SSD, but that's actually my current setup. And [URL=http://www.southpolesoftware.com/iVI/iVI.php]thanks to Solipsism[/URL] I think I'm ready to move all my concert video's over to iTunes as well, another 400+GB so that Media folder will get >1TB
The tips in this thread (and other means) are really great and much appreciated!
I read a very good article over at AT and made the decision to not make use use of FD. It's really great tech, works like a charm and will be beneficial to many. Just not in my case: I have OSX + /Applications + my Home drive all on SSD except for my iTunes Media folder. That's not only way too large @ 500+GB but also useless to have on SSD.
Just to make sure the 'i's are dotted and the 't's are crossed (unless you're Danish or Norwegian then you want to make sure the 'o's are crossed and the 'a's are dotted) you know you can hold down the Option key when opening iTunes, iPhoto and Aperture to point to a new default library for those apps, right?
Just to make sure the 'i's are dotted and the 't's are crossed (unless you're Danish or Norwegian then you want to make sure the 'o's are crossed and the 'a's are dotted) you know you can hold down the Option key when opening iTunes, iPhoto and Aperture to point to a new default library for those apps, right?
Indeed, I know this. Wasn't available till version, oh, can't remember, but I did buy the iTunes Library Manager software, back in the day.
Comments
Well, I put a Momentus XT in my MBP and wasn't impressed with the performance. It did probably feel a bit faster, but hardly anything to write home about. OTOH, when I switched from a platter drive to SSD, it was immediately noticeable and vastly superior. I haven't yet used a Fusion drive, so I can't comment on that, but I have to disagree with saying that the XT isn't QUITE as fast as an SSD (implying that it's comparable) and that it's a significant improvement over mechanical drives. In my experience, neither statement is true.
Maybe there's something about my configuration. Hybrid drives get a lot of rave reviews, but I just didn't see that much improvement.
Anand does show that subsequent boot and app loading times were lowered with repetition but it does seem like he was being kind to Seagate.
At some point I feel 1 GB will be standard though by then it will not be enough, 2 GB will be standard, and 4 GB will be available as the highest end option.
They are able to preload the OS and apps onto the SSD when you buy it, which other setups can't do but I doubt they'll have priorities for certain files over others such as always keeping the system folder on there. The benchmark test from before showed a large file transfer of over 128GB and it was SSD speed for most of the transfer and then dropped to the HDD speed so I'd have to assume they flushed the entire SSD first somehow. If the SSD gets filled up, as soon as you copy something else onto the Fusion drive, it will have to just send it to the HDD like other setups.
That's the current hybrid drive though. It doesn't use SRT, though it's supposed to store frequently used data, you just can't keep very much data in under 8GB. It's going to get confusing because the ones coming in next year will be called hybrid drives but use an entirely different setup.
2010 - hybrid drives launched, same as what we have now with just a 256MB-8GB cache and some adaptive memory to check frequent blocks - not enough flash, not fast, not like Fusion
2011 - Intel SRT, merges up to 64GB SSD cache with HDD but requires driver/BIOS-level management
2012 - Apple Fusion merges any SSD with HDD (4GB cache) - OS-level management
2013 - new hybrid drives with SRT (firmware-level), likely merge 32-64GB SSD with HDD, new internal management that can do better caching
Apple's advantage over an SRT setup will be the SSD size. If the cache is too small as tested here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/5
it can end up having no benefit at all. It's not clear if the caching management will differ significantly between them. I'd expect Fusion to put the most frequently accessed blocks on just like SRT. If future hybrid drives only come with 32GB though, Apple's 128GB will be a huge advantage.
They all seem to be working towards the same goal but Apple's setup will work best for the most part and they were first to use OS-level management and a large SSD. That's the benefit they get from selling both the software and hardware.
For end users, if the 2013 hybrid drives use a 64GB cache, I'd expect them to see mostly the same kind of results you get from Fusion and there are some benefits like it won't have any software incompatibilities like Fusion does and it will work on any OS. I'm not sure if you'll be able to boot Linux on a Fusion drive. You can also put multiple drives in together - for example the Mac Pro can have 4 SRT hybrid drives in RAID10.
As usual when Apple does something new, people are quick to point out it's not new at all but just like with the iPhone, while smartphones preceeded it, they weren't done properly. No implementation of a hybrid system prior to Fusion has really shown a significant benefit and if it has, has been difficult to setup. Apple has made it easy to configure and beneficial from the day you buy the machine and they've made the right choice with SSD size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Then why do they only offer the 1 TB solution and the price of 250.00 is a little high for 1 TB when compared to other Hybrids, 100 dollars less. I still think it's more cost effective to use two separate drives as well as a faster solution. A small 64GB SSD for the system and HDD for data. You can even get a Sandisk/Crucial/OCZ 256 GB now for 180.00, leave the base configuration of 1 TB and just buy a dual HD mounting kit for 50 and still be under the 250.00.
I think the problem with many suggestions suggestions like this is that they forget that the average Mac user is not a geek and spends zero time in forums such as this. Most people don't see the point or want the hassle of running two drives on the same machine. I'm not even sure that most people want the hassle of thinking about disk drives at all.
You are describing what Fusion Drive is: two separate drives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Previous post should have read, "Thanks sol AND dtidmore, now you BOTH have given me..."
So yes, David, thanks for the comment. Currently I have a JBOD in my Mac, but was thinking about getting fast Raptors or something. Maybe it's better to try to get speed gains through Core Storage rather than spending money on new HDD's while I can get a similar speed increase through software. Choices choices
I have a 300GB Raptor as my boot drive. There's only a small difference in performance compared to my other HDD's which are 7200rpm. The price you pay for the Raptor is not worth it for the small performance boost in my opinion, but I'm just a casual user. I'm so looking forward to getting my iMac with 3TB fusion drive. Based on what I've read, the fusion drive should smoke the Raptor but I won't be able to verify this until I receive my iMac.
I will be able to report how the computer performs after it is filled up well past the 64GB size of the SSD (I have a boatload of video files, movies, etc. haha). Nobody seems to have info on this and it's all I'm interested in. Of course, if your drive contents are less than 64GB, then it's safe to assume that the entirety of your drive contents are all on the flash drive for maximum performance.
The real question comes into play, when apps have to be stored on the HDD. What kind of performance hit will there be when that app, that you rarely use, has to be opened up? Nobody seems to have the answer to this question, but I'm not shy about answering it.
That won't work:
AppleKB
Booting from HDD will 'always be slow' so your moving to SSD will be a pleasant experience. I already boot from (PCIe)SSD and was thinking about replacing my JBOD to 3x Rapture RAID0 (with a TM in the 4th bay and rotating external backup for off-site).
That is precisely what I want to know as well, before setting up a FD. My Aperture now is running from SSD, including all the Thumbs, Previews and Masters. And even though I might not look at all the thousands of Thumbs and Previews I do want them to be on the SSD permanently. I haven't found a way to tell CS to leave file / dir alone and keep it on the SSD. Goes the other way as well; no need for regular listened to .mp3's to move to SSD.
Right now I'm just trying to get to this point of finishing 1.2, 56, 13.1 miles of swimming, cycling and running. If I succeed, I might want to do it officially. Berlin is closest, but I think I'll do it in Aix en Provence. That's only 130km from Mont Ventoux, so I can make it a workout holiday (< insert smiley here)
Best wished to your friend. I could *never* do a marathon! And thanks for the edit's in the previous FD post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
That won't work:
AppleKB
Phil,
I think the Sol was thinking that the thumb drive could act as a security key. No thumb drive, no boot as the boot Fusion Drive would be incomplete. You certainly can have a thumb drive as part of a Fusion Drive (could even be partitioned using Disk Utility so that only a tiny SLIVER of its space was added into the Fusion volume). It could be the third disk added into a Fusion drive. If even a kilobyte of space is allocated from the thumb drive to a Fusion drive and the thumb drive is removed, the Fusion drive will be incomplete and no longer bootable. So in this way, you could actually use the thumb drive as a security key.
David T
Security key! I couldn't think of the proper term when trying to describe my scenario. Thank you. Sorry if I was unclear, Phil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Booting from HDD will 'always be slow' so your moving to SSD will be a pleasant experience. I already boot from (PCIe)SSD and was thinking about replacing my JBOD to 3x Rapture RAID0 (with a TM in the 4th bay and rotating external backup for off-site).
That is precisely what I want to know as well, before setting up a FD. My Aperture now is running from SSD, including all the Thumbs, Previews and Masters. And even though I might not look at all the thousands of Thumbs and Previews I do want them to be on the SSD permanently. I haven't found a way to tell CS to leave file / dir alone and keep it on the SSD. Goes the other way as well; no need for regular listened to .mp3's to move to SSD.
Phil,
One way of forcing that the desired files remain on the SSD is to hard partition the SSD using disk utility before starting the FD setup and specifying ONLY the portion of the SSD that you want for FD to be included (ie exactly as I did to create an isolated swap/hibernation partition on the HDD). This would leave whatever portion of the SSD you desire outside of FD. Yes, you would have to either point Aperture to the SSD partition OR symlink it but this would accomplish your wishes to ensure that certain items are always on the SSD. I would choose a SSD large enough to allow plenty of growth room for those files that you wish to remain SSD bound as well as at least another 128GB for FD. There does NOT seem to be anything concrete about the necessity of 128GB SSD for FD, but as Apple has set that as the lower boundary, it is probably a good thing to stay at or above that number.
David T
That (!) is simplicity to the max that I just didn't see it; thanks much! The config of a FD setup is going to make it quite vulnerable with 1xSSD + 2xHDD. But if were to buy the 3 Raptors and create a RAID1 with my current separate SSD it would be just as vulnerable, if not more. On second thought I'm going to:
just maybe throw in the Security Key setup for kicks. Although it's a Mac Pro, not something you'd loose easily - lol
Here's the pic of the PCIe where you can see it has two sticks. It's the only bootable PCIe SSD available, and yes, you can create a RAID1, but I'm using it as a RAID0:
No no, it was clear to me what you wanted to accomplish. I just misunderstood the AppleKB article in this respect. Will you set it all up like this if/when you get the new iMac? I'd make certain you duplicate that thumb drive, nee, Security Key.
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah
…I thought the original goal of the fusion drive was so that when loading a doucment(page document for say), was going to be the first page loaded in flash, yet the rest load on the hard drive while viewing it.
Well, the entire file is all going to be in one place within the drive, and that's on the SSD (if you use it frequently enough) or the HDD (if you don't).
You're thinking about the process of caching as applied to old hard drives, extended to "hybrid drives". For example, Seagate makes a "hybrid drive" that combines a regular spinning drive and a little NAND chip. This is all built into one piece, and the NAND is only used for temporarily caching files, like you've said. Fusion Drive is for the actual storage of files.
I believe FD to work at the block level, not file level. A bit like how iWork documents work with iCloud (? same difference)
The tips in this thread (and other means) are really great and much appreciated!
Just to make sure the 'i's are dotted and the 't's are crossed (unless you're Danish or Norwegian then you want to make sure the 'o's are crossed and the 'a's are dotted) you know you can hold down the Option key when opening iTunes, iPhoto and Aperture to point to a new default library for those apps, right?
Indeed, I know this. Wasn't available till version, oh, can't remember, but I did buy the iTunes Library Manager software, back in the day.
Thanks for dotting and crossing.