Don't SSD's have a problem over time with failures based on number of time data is written to them? Therefore they would be a bad choice for Servers. Maybe they've resovled the problems with SSD's 'wearing out' faster than HDDs...
Yes, it appears as a single drive to the OS as well as TimeMachine and Superduper. This is first hand info as I am using BYO Fusion on my MBP and have backed up using TM as well as SuperDuper and actually restored from a SuperDuper clone.
I got a Momentus XT 750 in my MBP. It works fine and fast. However, I've never tested it with Time Machine.
I'm looking forward to a new version with more SSD capacity. The 8GB in the Seagate after Apple's launch of the Fusion Drive with 128GB SSD annoys me a bit.
It's a pity Apple has chosen the 1TB capacity that exists only with 5400 rpm speed.
I just found this page (on seagate's site), it doesn't say too much I know but there are also some links there with more details, reviews:
Which apps does Apple consider "core application" which will be kept on the SSD pemanently? I certainly don't need any of Apple's apps except Mail and Safari taking up space. Do they give their apps preferential treatment?
I'm torn about the Fusion drives. On one hand, it's nice that it's baked into the OS. On the other, you have to backup/clone the entire drive as a unit. I'd like to see what happens when a Fusion drive is cloned to an HDD, then back to a Fusion drive using common tools like SuperDuper.
I did it twice. First time I created a manually fused clone of my original SSD/HDD symlinked file system first by cloning the SSD using SuperDuper, then removing symlinks in the clone, then copying actual HDD directories back to the symlinked locations (ie created a single HDD version of my SSD/HDD setup). Then I created the Fusion Drive, did a clean install of ML followed by a restoration from the Super Duper Clone. Worked perfectly!
Second time, I did a fresh, complete SuperDuper clone of the newly created Fusion drive (SuperDuper sees it as a single drive BTW). Then I wiped the SSD/HDD Fusion drive followed by a SuperDuper restore in its entirety. Worked Perfectly!
Fusion simply appears and works as a single drive that SuperDuper is quite happy handling.
FYI,I have also successfully used Alsoft's Disk Warrior on the Fusion drive. In addition, OSX's Disk Utility found some minor errors in the Fusion drive, so I booted off my SuperDuper clone, ran Disk Utility Repair Disk on the Fusion Volume to fix the issues (typical HFS+ crap) and Disk Utility had NO issues working with the Fusion Drive (I am of course running 10.8.2 OSX)
Which apps does Apple consider "core application" which will be kept on the SSD pemanently? I certainly don't need any of Apple's apps except Mail and Safari taking up space. Do they give their apps preferential treatment?
Just wondering out loud...
I believe we were told that the Fusion system learns. As you use it, the most frequent apps and documents are moved to the SSD and the least used get copied to the HDD.
EDIT: I see it does say core apps are permanent but I probably use iTunes, App Store Calendar, QuickTime quite a bit. Ironically I do not use mail at all.
... And of course the more coal you add, the faster it spins ... You want more speed, just shovel on some more fuel. Why I once got it up to 88.8 MPH ...
That's not too impressive ... unless you have a flux capacitor
Wait, a fusion drive with a flux capacitor? Where have I seen that before?
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!
This gets tiring. Name ONE computer manufacturer that comes out with new technology and will tell you that you can bring in your PC and they'll upgrade it for you? Name one. HP won't do it. Dell won't do it. 3rd-party service shops will do it and obviously, tech-guys like us will do it. Here's the kicker, you have anyone do it, and kiss your warranty goodbye if it's damaged by anyone outside of the manufacturer doing it. 3rd-party or us tinkerers.
Obviously, the iMac is not one that is easily opened up by the average Joe. Here's a shocker for you know-it-alls: Most will NEVER upgrade their iMacs on any level after they purchase it. NEVER! Apple knows this and designs their products based on that and I do not fault Apple for doing it. I think it's great. I've opened up my iMac a few times just for kicks. It's an extra 10 minutes compared to a regular PC and most of that is prep-work so as not to scratch-up this pretty baby. I don't recommend it for the joe-consumer, but any halfway-technical person can do it.
Now, NOTHING is stopping you from doing it yourself. There's even a how-to out there of folks that have done it. Go right ahead and do it yourself. You're on your own just like any other PC you crack open. Why is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?
Do you guys honestly expect Apple to not only include new tech in their iMacs, but demand that they put it in their "old" machines? Come-on, get real. Do it yourself and be done with it. If you're not technically-inclined, or clueless.. find someone else to do it. Don't be surprised though if they actually expect to be paid to do that work too, unless you're expecting Apple to upgrade old machines for free right?
edit: I'm asking this to everyone in general, not flaming you Saarek.
I got a Momentus XT 750 in my MBP. It works fine and fast. However, I've never tested it with Time Machine.
I'm looking forward to a new version with more SSD capacity. The 8GB in the Seagate after Apple's launch of the Fusion Drive with 128GB SSD annoys me a bit.
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.
I wonder how the automated 'fusion drive' process compares to handling this manually. I removed the optical drive from my MacBook Pro, moved the HDD into its bay, and installed a SSD into the old HDD bay. I have the OS installed on the SSD. I also have my most frequently used applications stored there. I have my Windows 7 VM on the SSD. Everything else I store on the HDD and use some symlinks to create some transparency. I choose which apps I want sped up, and my keeping my Windows VM on the SSD it also boots lightening fast. As I've run out of room on my SSD, I created a second virtual drive in my VM and stored it on the HDD. This is where I store my Outlook pst and ost files.
I've got a nearly identical setup on a Mac Mini.
Apple's fusion drive clearly is a no-brainer, maintenance free solution in comparison to my manually having to move things around when needed, but I wonder if the more manual, static solution I've got actually nets a performance boost over the fusion drive?
I wonder how the automated 'fusion drive' process compares to handling this manually. I removed the optical drive from my MacBook Pro, moved the HDD into its bay, and installed a SSD into the old HDD bay. I have the OS installed on the SSD. I also have my most frequently used applications stored there. I have my Windows 7 VM on the SSD. Everything else I store on the HDD and use some symlinks to create some transparency. I choose which apps I want sped up, and my keeping my Windows VM on the SSD it also boots lightening fast. As I've run out of room on my SSD, I created a second virtual drive in my VM and stored it on the HDD. This is where I store my Outlook pst and ost files.
I've got a nearly identical setup on a Mac Mini.
Apple's fusion drive clearly is a no-brainer, maintenance free solution in comparison to my manually having to move things around when needed, but I wonder if the more manual, static solution I've got actually nets a performance boost over the fusion drive?
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?
OK, a little help here. I don't see that an iMac can have both a SSD and an HDD in the case. To the extent a third party mades a fusion drive that is part SDD and HDD that has a single plug and mounts in a single "bay" space, that might be rather spiffy and worth an upgrade.
But...I've seen the video of pulling the galss and doing internal surgery. Possible yes. Possible to break something irreparably: yes too. I'm an engineer, not a technician.
But is this possible: mount an internal SSD and put an external FW HDD and ask Mountain Lion to do it's magic to turn that combination into a single fusion drive? I'm guessing not, but you guys and gals are a lot smarter (and adventurous) than I am.
OK, a little help here. I don't see that an iMac can have both a SSD and an HDD in the case.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
What you don't have a coal-fired, steam-powered HDD on your Mac?
(at 24 sec mark) Really funny ad.
Don't SSD's have a problem over time with failures based on number of time data is written to them? Therefore they would be a bad choice for Servers. Maybe they've resovled the problems with SSD's 'wearing out' faster than HDDs...
Dear Announcer: Turn down your input volume from the mic when you record. It's effin' annoying.
Yes, it appears as a single drive to the OS as well as TimeMachine and Superduper. This is first hand info as I am using BYO Fusion on my MBP and have backed up using TM as well as SuperDuper and actually restored from a SuperDuper clone.
David
By all means don't widen your width of web content so you can see the full scaled down view for YouTube.
I got a Momentus XT 750 in my MBP. It works fine and fast. However, I've never tested it with Time Machine.
I'm looking forward to a new version with more SSD capacity. The 8GB in the Seagate after Apple's launch of the Fusion Drive with 128GB SSD annoys me a bit.
It's a pity Apple has chosen the 1TB capacity that exists only with 5400 rpm speed.
I just found this page (on seagate's site), it doesn't say too much I know but there are also some links there with more details, reviews:
http://storageeffect.media.seagate.com/2012/10/storage-effect/apple-fusion-drive-or-seagate-sshd-is-there-a-difference/
Which apps does Apple consider "core application" which will be kept on the SSD pemanently? I certainly don't need any of Apple's apps except Mail and Safari taking up space. Do they give their apps preferential treatment?
Just wondering out loud...
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
I'm torn about the Fusion drives. On one hand, it's nice that it's baked into the OS. On the other, you have to backup/clone the entire drive as a unit. I'd like to see what happens when a Fusion drive is cloned to an HDD, then back to a Fusion drive using common tools like SuperDuper.
I did it twice. First time I created a manually fused clone of my original SSD/HDD symlinked file system first by cloning the SSD using SuperDuper, then removing symlinks in the clone, then copying actual HDD directories back to the symlinked locations (ie created a single HDD version of my SSD/HDD setup). Then I created the Fusion Drive, did a clean install of ML followed by a restoration from the Super Duper Clone. Worked perfectly!
Second time, I did a fresh, complete SuperDuper clone of the newly created Fusion drive (SuperDuper sees it as a single drive BTW). Then I wiped the SSD/HDD Fusion drive followed by a SuperDuper restore in its entirety. Worked Perfectly!
Fusion simply appears and works as a single drive that SuperDuper is quite happy handling.
FYI,I have also successfully used Alsoft's Disk Warrior on the Fusion drive. In addition, OSX's Disk Utility found some minor errors in the Fusion drive, so I booted off my SuperDuper clone, ran Disk Utility Repair Disk on the Fusion Volume to fix the issues (typical HFS+ crap) and Disk Utility had NO issues working with the Fusion Drive (I am of course running 10.8.2 OSX)
David
David
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Which apps does Apple consider "core application" which will be kept on the SSD pemanently? I certainly don't need any of Apple's apps except Mail and Safari taking up space. Do they give their apps preferential treatment?
Just wondering out loud...
I believe we were told that the Fusion system learns. As you use it, the most frequent apps and documents are moved to the SSD and the least used get copied to the HDD.
EDIT: I see it does say core apps are permanent but I probably use iTunes, App Store Calendar, QuickTime quite a bit. Ironically I do not use mail at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
... And of course the more coal you add, the faster it spins ... You want more speed, just shovel on some more fuel. Why I once got it up to 88.8 MPH ...
That's not too impressive ... unless you have a flux capacitor
Wait, a fusion drive with a flux capacitor? Where have I seen that before?
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!
This gets tiring. Name ONE computer manufacturer that comes out with new technology and will tell you that you can bring in your PC and they'll upgrade it for you? Name one. HP won't do it. Dell won't do it. 3rd-party service shops will do it and obviously, tech-guys like us will do it. Here's the kicker, you have anyone do it, and kiss your warranty goodbye if it's damaged by anyone outside of the manufacturer doing it. 3rd-party or us tinkerers.
Obviously, the iMac is not one that is easily opened up by the average Joe. Here's a shocker for you know-it-alls: Most will NEVER upgrade their iMacs on any level after they purchase it. NEVER! Apple knows this and designs their products based on that and I do not fault Apple for doing it. I think it's great. I've opened up my iMac a few times just for kicks. It's an extra 10 minutes compared to a regular PC and most of that is prep-work so as not to scratch-up this pretty baby. I don't recommend it for the joe-consumer, but any halfway-technical person can do it.
Now, NOTHING is stopping you from doing it yourself. There's even a how-to out there of folks that have done it. Go right ahead and do it yourself. You're on your own just like any other PC you crack open. Why is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?
Do you guys honestly expect Apple to not only include new tech in their iMacs, but demand that they put it in their "old" machines? Come-on, get real. Do it yourself and be done with it. If you're not technically-inclined, or clueless.. find someone else to do it. Don't be surprised though if they actually expect to be paid to do that work too, unless you're expecting Apple to upgrade old machines for free right?
edit: I'm asking this to everyone in general, not flaming you Saarek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac-user
I got a Momentus XT 750 in my MBP. It works fine and fast. However, I've never tested it with Time Machine.
I'm looking forward to a new version with more SSD capacity. The 8GB in the Seagate after Apple's launch of the Fusion Drive with 128GB SSD annoys me a bit.
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.
I wonder how the automated 'fusion drive' process compares to handling this manually. I removed the optical drive from my MacBook Pro, moved the HDD into its bay, and installed a SSD into the old HDD bay. I have the OS installed on the SSD. I also have my most frequently used applications stored there. I have my Windows 7 VM on the SSD. Everything else I store on the HDD and use some symlinks to create some transparency. I choose which apps I want sped up, and my keeping my Windows VM on the SSD it also boots lightening fast. As I've run out of room on my SSD, I created a second virtual drive in my VM and stored it on the HDD. This is where I store my Outlook pst and ost files.
I've got a nearly identical setup on a Mac Mini.
Apple's fusion drive clearly is a no-brainer, maintenance free solution in comparison to my manually having to move things around when needed, but I wonder if the more manual, static solution I've got actually nets a performance boost over the fusion drive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
I wonder how the automated 'fusion drive' process compares to handling this manually. I removed the optical drive from my MacBook Pro, moved the HDD into its bay, and installed a SSD into the old HDD bay. I have the OS installed on the SSD. I also have my most frequently used applications stored there. I have my Windows 7 VM on the SSD. Everything else I store on the HDD and use some symlinks to create some transparency. I choose which apps I want sped up, and my keeping my Windows VM on the SSD it also boots lightening fast. As I've run out of room on my SSD, I created a second virtual drive in my VM and stored it on the HDD. This is where I store my Outlook pst and ost files.
I've got a nearly identical setup on a Mac Mini.
Apple's fusion drive clearly is a no-brainer, maintenance free solution in comparison to my manually having to move things around when needed, but I wonder if the more manual, static solution I've got actually nets a performance boost over the fusion drive?
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?
OK, a little help here. I don't see that an iMac can have both a SSD and an HDD in the case. To the extent a third party mades a fusion drive that is part SDD and HDD that has a single plug and mounts in a single "bay" space, that might be rather spiffy and worth an upgrade.
But...I've seen the video of pulling the galss and doing internal surgery. Possible yes. Possible to break something irreparably: yes too. I'm an engineer, not a technician.
But is this possible: mount an internal SSD and put an external FW HDD and ask Mountain Lion to do it's magic to turn that combination into a single fusion drive? I'm guessing not, but you guys and gals are a lot smarter (and adventurous) than I am.
I'd never bother, after getting 800MB/s on my PCISSD from OWC
http://eshop.macsales.com/search/Pci+SSD
Supposedly you're better of with 2 HDD's than the Fusion Drive
http://macperformanceguide.com/macmini2012-dual-drives-vs-fusion.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightzero
OK, a little help here. I don't see that an iMac can have both a SSD and an HDD in the case.
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
Bring the Fusion Drive with SSD & 7200 RPM HD.
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.