Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Are We Making A Big Deal About The Mini SSD?
- Thread starter Heat_Fan89
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mikael wrote:
"In many professional settings, full disk encryption using the likes of FileVault on the Mac or BitLocker in Windows has been mandatory for a long time. On the Mac it's been the recommended configuration for a couple of generations of macOS. This effectively means that you should have been keeping backup copies of your data anyway, because if your disk dies in a bad way, you're not getting any of it back off that device.
With the T2 security/disk controller chip, there's no longer any way around having your data encrypted at rest, and so not maintaining a backup strategy has become an even worse choice than it used to be."
I realize I'm in the minority, but I prefer having an UNencrpyted internal hard drive.
I -WANT- all my data to be "in the clear".
The first thing I will do with a t2-equipped Mac is to DISABLE the t2 to the fullest extent that it can be disabled. This is possible with the "Security app" that Apple provides.
However, I don't believe -- at least, not at this time -- that the encryption of the internal drive can be disabled or over-ridden.
The t2 will be the biggest "obstacle" in front of me when it comes time to upgrade from my 2012 Mini.
I might consider buying a 2017 iMac instead, which will be "the last of the desktop Macs" to come WITHOUT the t2. The 2019 iMacs will surely have one.
If possible, I intend to re-format the internal drive to HFS+, and install a copy of Mojave onto it, and run that way as long as possible, so I can still keep using all my older 32-bit software...
"In many professional settings, full disk encryption using the likes of FileVault on the Mac or BitLocker in Windows has been mandatory for a long time. On the Mac it's been the recommended configuration for a couple of generations of macOS. This effectively means that you should have been keeping backup copies of your data anyway, because if your disk dies in a bad way, you're not getting any of it back off that device.
With the T2 security/disk controller chip, there's no longer any way around having your data encrypted at rest, and so not maintaining a backup strategy has become an even worse choice than it used to be."
I realize I'm in the minority, but I prefer having an UNencrpyted internal hard drive.
I -WANT- all my data to be "in the clear".
The first thing I will do with a t2-equipped Mac is to DISABLE the t2 to the fullest extent that it can be disabled. This is possible with the "Security app" that Apple provides.
However, I don't believe -- at least, not at this time -- that the encryption of the internal drive can be disabled or over-ridden.
The t2 will be the biggest "obstacle" in front of me when it comes time to upgrade from my 2012 Mini.
I might consider buying a 2017 iMac instead, which will be "the last of the desktop Macs" to come WITHOUT the t2. The 2019 iMacs will surely have one.
If possible, I intend to re-format the internal drive to HFS+, and install a copy of Mojave onto it, and run that way as long as possible, so I can still keep using all my older 32-bit software...
How do you do that? Every time I try that, Mojave changes the partition back to APFS. Unless someone can tell me, I don't know the benefits APFS gives me on my 2012 Mini.
Regarding the rest of your post, I understand what you're trying to achieve, but what drawbacks are you trying to avoid in this specific use case?
"Regarding the rest of your post, I understand what you're trying to achieve, but what drawbacks are you trying to avoid in this specific use case?"
If something goes wrong (with the internal drive), I want to be able to immediately boot from whatever backup I have on hand (I keep ONLY cloned backups), get up-and-running that way, and then have the ability to "attack" the problems on the internal drive in whatever way I see as necessary to get back-up-and-running.
The t2 is designed to OBSTRUCT approaches like that.
If something goes wrong (with the internal drive), I want to be able to immediately boot from whatever backup I have on hand (I keep ONLY cloned backups), get up-and-running that way, and then have the ability to "attack" the problems on the internal drive in whatever way I see as necessary to get back-up-and-running.
The t2 is designed to OBSTRUCT approaches like that.
I’m just an average pleb but although SSDs have a maximum read / write over their lifetime, I think the OS management should handle when bits fail and simply remove them from the index.
A mechanical spinner is always more likely to fail due to moving parts and the controllers could fail equally on both types. Certainly you could get a professional service to recover a platter from a failed drive, but that’s big $$$.
My analogy was always that HDDs plain die, but SSDs crumble
A mechanical spinner is always more likely to fail due to moving parts and the controllers could fail equally on both types. Certainly you could get a professional service to recover a platter from a failed drive, but that’s big $$$.
My analogy was always that HDDs plain die, but SSDs crumble
From what I can see (I don't yet own a T2-equipped Mac, so I can't test for myself), nothing really prevents that even if you'd go encrypted, but I do see the point of preferring to err on the cautious side.
Isn't anyone thinking about the poor schmucks making all those 5400 rpm drives?
They're losing their jobs and will probably have to move back into their drafty .cave-dwellings. It's not easy living on Taro, Cassava, Papaya and the occasional wild boar.
They're losing their jobs and will probably have to move back into their drafty .cave-dwellings. It's not easy living on Taro, Cassava, Papaya and the occasional wild boar.
Stil running a 17” 2010 MBP with 512GB ssd from day one. No problem whatsoever.
Apple uses quality components in their computers so I think this is the same. I trust Apple to do the right th8ng here.
[doublepost=1541110341][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1541110341][/doublepost]
Love Apple refurbs. Get it sent to a store in Delaware to skip sales tax too!buying mine when it hits refurbished site. too poor for full retail
where are you getting your prices from? Amazon list the Samsung T5 SSD for $280
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-T5-P...-spons&keywords=samsung+t5+portable+ssd&psc=1
Never mind, you were talking about the Thunderbolt 3 version X5. My bad.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
It’s interesting that there’s no fusion option for the Mini. Wonder if Fusion is now dead and Apple is all SSD, inc iMacs.
[doublepost=1541110934][/doublepost]
Makes me think Apple was forced to use SSD as there’s no space for a spinner or fusion drive.
On the other hand, now that they have space because of loosing that drive bay, they can still install a socket for a regular NVMe SSD. Space is not as tight as in the MacBooks...
The more I think about it, the more obvious it is, that the SSD can be swapped. It would be odd if they give us the option to change the RAM compared to the 2014 model while soldering the SSD.
And: Repairs during warranty would be cheaper for Apple than to replace the whole unit. Fact is, the Mini will sell like hot cakes if we can upgrade the SSD...
no worries. with all the new options, early ssd days are starting to look like the good old days. and enclosures make it even more so.
looks like all that new space was liberated for the cooling system, which reportedly pushes twice the air
this is why I like forums, we share ideas, generating new ideas and questions we would not on our own
todays example, Tim. he's mr logistics. there are 3 cpus and 5 drive sizes. that's 15 motherboards to produce and stock and track. can't imagine Tims that much of a masochist when all he has to do is tell engineering to use a plug in. if it really was soldered on, they would want to offer closer to the iPad number of options (less).
And if they’re using a socket CPU it would be only 1 motherboard! Quite possible because they said it’s a desktop CPU. Hmmmmm...
Sooo..... thinking of minimum internal SSD and using external larger SSD for data, software, files, music, videos, pics, etc. May even go with minimum RAM and replace - no use of 10gig ethernet. Definitely i7.
So, given that we're talking about SSDs lifespan and wearing out... (beware, it's not the first time I've asked this question): Does working on / using exclusively the external drive count towards the writes count of the main SSD? Because the information passes through the main SSD right?
If not, using an external SSD may be the key for a long lasting Mac mini.
By the way, with TLC and now QLC NAND, lifespan of SSDs is shorter and shorter. Any software to know what type of NAND cells does our mac SSD have? Thank you.
Excellent question. I want to know! QLC is just pure crap. Just because one can does not mean one should. My data gets MLC ONLY. I would not consider anything else.
And it only gets worse as NAND prices change over time. Remember Apple prices are best value early on - remember the 2014 (RIP)
NAND flash lasts longer partly through having no moving parts to wear out but when it fails, unlike a HDD, you usually get little warning and it'll just go. Backups, therefore are useful - so Apple have your back with time machine.
We'll soon find out with the iFixit teardown in due course but if it is removable then I'd expect nothing less than a proprietary connector that's difficult to reach. It would be stunning if there was a standard M.2 connector at play but would be unheard of for Apple - remember they even adopted this strategy in the 2013 Mac Pro - the storage was removable but was custom fitted for that machine.
The fact that the Mini now has Thunderbolt 3 ports means that people can get Samsung 970Pro performance using an external module like the X5 series. If people were so inclined to spec their Mac accordingly they could:
1. Spec the base model with internal 128Gb SSD
2. Upgrade the i3 CPU to their own i7 if the i3 is socketed - or just pay for the upgrade.
3. Leave the RAM at 8Gb with a view to adding your own.
As far as I can see the CPU price differential is not that bad this time around and you have to consider the potential inconvenience of having to work with external storage.
Samsung X5 1TB is about $700. So you are not saving a huge amount. Samsung X5 is a portable drive with limited thermal boundary. It has a strict thermal throttling very apparent during a long sequential writing as reported by AnandTech and others. With people complaining about TB dongle hell, it is much cleaner to get 1 TB internal SSD than getting Samsung X5 or G-Technology mobile Pro SSD.
If you want external TB3 SSD drive for Windows installation, get Akitio Node Lite with NVMe SSD. You won't be hit by aggressive thermal throttling of portable TB3 drives.
Not quite. In instances where the T1 or T2 is present, the T2 itself is a fundamental part of storage architecture, serving as a PCIe/NVMe controller. In the MacBook Pro, the NAND is baked right onto the motherboard. In the iMac Pro, the NAND is attached to a socketed module, but there's no controller on the module itself. You can see its close proximity to the T2 chip in this iMac Pro teardown.
[Courtesy of iFixit]
In short, there's a minimal chance that the SSD would be socketed (considering the inside shots show the NAND configuration similar to todays portables). If it is socketed there is an even lower chance we'd be able to interface with it via off the shelf components.
Sadly, I suspect you are quite correct.Not quite. In instances where the T1 or T2 is present, the T2 itself is a fundamental part of storage architecture, serving as a PCIe/NVMe controller. In the MacBook Pro, the NAND is baked right onto the motherboard. In the iMac Pro, the NAND is attached to a socketed module, but there's no controller on the module itself. You can see its close proximity to the T2 chip in this iMac Pro teardown.
[Courtesy of iFixit]
In short, there's a minimal chance that the SSD would be socketed (considering the inside shots show the NAND configuration similar to todays portables). If it is socketed there is an even lower chance we'd be able to interface with it via off the shelf components.