Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I had a look into the hybrid drives and the only ones I could easily find are the Seagate Momentus XT series. However, they're only available in 500/750GB with 32MB of flash, whereas Apple's drive has 128MB of flash.

Seagate's product description states that

Adaptive Memory technology delivers SSD-like response from the applications and files you use the most. It lets the Momentus XT drive selectively tackle frequently used data, copy it to the flash, track its relevancy and keep the flash current. You get the instant response experience you need to perform at your best.

So all the data handling is done by the drive, not by the OS it would seem?

:apple:
 
I had a look into the hybrid drives and the only ones I could easily find are the Seagate Momentus XT series. However, they're only available in 500/750GB with 32MB of flash, whereas Apple's drive has 128MB of flash.

Seagate's product description states that



So all the data handling is done by the drive, not by the OS it would seem?

:apple:

Yes Seagates caching algorithms are done in firmware. The advantage here is that it's agnostic to computers filesystem and requires no drivers.
 
Everything I'm reading about these Momentus drives sounds very positive. I reckon I'll go for the i7 Mini, replace the stock drive with one of those and upgrade the RAM to a healthy 16GB.

I must admit I was a little disappointed at first to see HD4000s across the line, but for what I need I'm sure it'll be fine.

:apple:
 
Fusion drive seems like a Tiered version of Intel SRT. It is not anything like the Seagate hybrid drive. It will blow out the performance of the seagate method.

Intel SRT is real nice, I have to machines where I use that feature and it really speeds things up intelligently.

The Fusion seems to take it up a notch where it will store OS/Apps files on the SSD VS SRT which caches as it works.

So its like SRT+ and nicely done by Apple making it foolproof and transparent to the end user.

With SRT and Windows you need to mess with Bios, make sure your SSD and spindle are configured in RAID mode, install drivers, config etc..

This fusion seems native to the OS not an addon which makes it simple and foolproof.

Definately a big plus compared to the world Windows :D
 
At least in the iMac the fusion drive is not simply a hybrid hard drive.

It looks like the SSD is an msata drive like in the rMBP & MBA.

Once somebody opens up one of these new minis we'll know for sure but I'm guessing it'll be a separate drive. In which case OWC can bring on the larger drives
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    60.5 KB · Views: 130
At least in the iMac the fusion drive is not simply a hybrid hard drive.

It looks like the SSD is an msata drive like in the rMBP & MBA.

Once somebody opens up one of these new minis we'll know for sure but I'm guessing it'll be a separate drive. In which case OWC can bring on the larger drives

Fusion drive is definitely not a special disk drive. Its just your run of the mill HD + a separate SSD module, either MSATA or its own SATA SSD drive.

The terminology is a bit confusing because it makes it sound like its some super special unique apple drive, but its just the equivalent of Intel SRT + tiering and with some Apple software magic, making it transparent to the end user.

Unlike SRT on a Windows machine which definately requires messing with Bios and software installations/settings. Fusion is cool because its not an addon like SRT but inherent in the OS and gets to be more intelligent than plain SRT + windows. (plus transparent and foolproof.)

The beauty of this type of tech (ie SRT etc..) is it makes the most bang for the buck use of your SSD. Why fill an SSD with a bunch of files that either rarely get used, or never used at all. Much better to only use high speed SSD for hot files that get hit all the time, and relegate the unused stuff on the cheaper HD. and doing it transparently without having to figure out what files to move to the SSD and what files to move the the hard drive.

Regular drive is 5400RPM

(For ubergeeks) This would be the equivalent of the Manchester Atlas computer introducing the use of VM/Memory paging back in the day. :)
 
Last edited:
Traditional drive rpm?

There has been much discussion about the Fusion drive wrt whether it's a hybrid or separate drives. Either way, I can't find info regarding the rpm of the traditional drive. Anyone know?
 
We definitely need to wait to see how this is really carried out on the drives and not just a buzzword for SSD caching.

I have a strong feeling you're going to be correct. While it'd be neat if CoreStorage had a bit more control over it, it's just going to be an implementation of the SSD caching that Ivy Bridge has had for a while now. (I remember looking at Dell ultrabooks months ago with that feature - 500GB drive + 32GB SSD cache.)

----------

There has been much discussion about the Fusion drive wrt whether it's a hybrid or separate drives. Either way, I can't find info regarding the rpm of the traditional drive. Anyone know?

Given that the store lists both the standalone drive and the SSD+HD options as 5400 RPM, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it's 5400 RPM.

(And that's not to mention the fact that 1TB 7200RPM 2.5" drives are not very common at the moment.)
 
non computer guy here...

So fusion Drive appears to be only available in the mid level mini and NOT the server?

If I go this route, am I getting 1 TB of hard drive space total? or 1TB + 128GB flash????


Thanks!!!!!
 
Fusion Drive?

It seems to me a complicated, neither here nor there solution to a problem that probably never existed before it was dreamed up.

Just to install decent sized SSD, with an external HDD for those who have greater storage needs seems simple and elegant enough.
 
Fusion Drive?

It seems to me a complicated, neither here nor there solution to a problem that probably never existed before it was dreamed up.

Just to install decent sized SSD, with an external HDD for those who have greater storage needs seems simple and elegant enough.

i agree wit this. but im also insanely OCD with my hard drive and how and where things are stored and such and prefer controlling what is on my SSD and what is on my HDD
 
Fusion Drive?

It seems to me a complicated, neither here nor there solution to a problem that probably never existed before it was dreamed up.

Just to install decent sized SSD, with an external HDD for those who have greater storage needs seems simple and elegant enough.

How is having something plugged into the back of your mini more elegant than having it built in? :confused:
 
Any idea how the fusion drive would handle a 200gb aperture library? Will it just act like a normal HDD because it's too big for the SSD or will it split out parts of the library. I read that all writes will go to the SSD in the first instance, so this might speed things up too? But if the files are only on the HDD the reads will still be slow?
 
How is having something plugged into the back of your mini more elegant than having it built in? :confused:

A simple solution seems more elegant to me than complicating things. With a Mini you need to plug stuff in, but you can chose what to plug in according to your needs.

The iMac is Apple's elegant looking self contained offering, but it is more computer than many need, or can afford.
 
Fusion Drive?

It seems to me a complicated, neither here nor there solution to a problem that probably never existed before it was dreamed up.

Just to install decent sized SSD, with an external HDD for those who have greater storage needs seems simple and elegant enough.

Nice to think outside the box?

For the average consumer, they would have a hard time dealing with data spread over two drives. Apple is simplyfing it for them, and adding an overall system speed up.

Not every is a tech nerd reading tech websites

----------

Any idea how the fusion drive would handle a 200gb aperture library? Will it just act like a normal HDD because it's too big for the SSD or will it split out parts of the library. I read that all writes will go to the SSD in the first instance, so this might speed things up too? But if the files are only on the HDD the reads will still be slow?

This is the type of question I want to see answered. Will newer projects/imports be on the SSD and older ones not viewed for months be on the HDD?How will this be managed?
 
This is the type of question I want to see answered. Will newer projects/imports be on the SSD and older ones not viewed for months be on the HDD?How will this be managed?

Let's just hope someone on here gets a fusion drive in the next few days and can start answering these questions. Right now putting my Aperture library and my system/apps on SSD (the ideal) is not really practical as the internal 256 SSD would get too full and buying an external SSD as well as a mid mini with SSD would be a big spend. The fusion seems like it might offer a good compromise, giving SSD-like Aperture and system performance for substantially less spend. However, if it doesn't help with Aperture, I'll just go for the SSD or standard HDD... damn you Apple, why do you make these things so hard!
 
Fusion Drive?

It seems to me a complicated, neither here nor there solution to a problem that probably never existed before it was dreamed up.

Just to install decent sized SSD, with an external HDD for those who have greater storage needs seems simple and elegant enough.

It's not complicated, it solves a real problem, and it wasn't just dreamed up.

This general idea has been in use in servers for years now, and Seagate even built a hard drive that was this same basic idea as an all-in-one device (although theirs had so little flash that it wasn't quite as useful.) Intel had this available as a feature a few years ago ("Turbo Memory", again, so little flash that it wasn't really useful,) and has recently revived it again with a reasonable amount of flash.

I thought this was going to just be Apple implementing Intel's newest version, but it appears to be a ground-up implementation that is "more intelligent", by not simply being a cache.

Yes, getting a "one of each" is a simple-enough solution, but it takes actual data management. Most users don't want to deal with tracking which data is where. If you're up for that, more power to you - if you are willing to do the work of organizing your data, that WILL be faster. (For example, the Mac mini Server is available with a conventional arrangement of one SSD plus one spinning drive *NOT* configured as "Fusion".) ** Edit: Whoops, they removed that with this update. Last year you could get the server with one SSD and one spinning drive, this year it's an either/or proposition...

But for most users, not having to think about it is by far the simpler way to do it. "It just works" is what most people want. They don't want to have to remember to put that downloaded game on the spinning drive; they don't want to have to deal with accidentally filling up the boot SSD; etc.

As for the physical implementation... It is not a single-device drive like Seagate's solution. That much is clear. At least on the iMac, it is one conventional 3.5" desktop hard drive with a "stick" style SSD like in the MacBook Air and Retina MacBook Pro. Presumably the Mac mini uses this same arrangement, although it could use two 2.5" mobile hard drives (one spinning, one SSD,) as the server model uses the same chassis and uses two 2.5" mobile hard drives. Personally, I would love the mac mini server to have both two 2.5" mobile hard drives and a stick-SSD, but the 'midrange' Fusion model will likely be what I get.
 
Last edited:
Its a lot of extra money for the exact same storage space though. I wonder how much i would benefit from it in my day to day use...

For instance if i un-rar a recently downloaded 5 gig file, would it use the SSD for that?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.