Got my my first Mac-pro 4.1!

[scotttnz]

don't bother with a fusion drive; its marketing more than performance.

I don't understand why many people are so down on fusion drive. Of course all SSD is better, but if you only have, or can only afford a small SSD, fusion drive works very well. I had it on my first Mac Mini, and it worked flawlessly, and 99% of the time just felt like having a 1TB SSD.

It works in a similar way to auto-tiering on an enterprise storage array, but apple bought it to the desktop and good on them. And just like what is starting to happen in enterprise arrays, fusion drive will become less relevant as SSD cost continue to come down and capacities increase, but it still provides a useful tool to meet a certain cost\performance\capacity balance.

And like all storage, whether its fusion, all SSD, or pixie dust, back up your data!

 

[scottsjack]

I don't understand why many people are so down on fusion drive. Of course all SSD is better, but if you only have, or can only afford a small SSD, fusion drive works very well. I had it on my first Mac Mini, and it worked flawlessly, and 99% of the time just felt like having a 1TB SSD.

Backup or not, I keep two Time Machines and one HDD clone per Mac, I do not like the idea of splitting the boot drive up between two storage units. That goes for Fusion Drive or RAID.

I do recommend getting a Fusion Drive in a mini and maybe an iMac because you get all of the connectors and hardware needed to install a proper-sized SSD later and have a single boot drive plus one data drive. I just cannot see that in a Mac Pro though. A three or four-hundred dollar SSD would just be way better.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

I don't understand why many people are so down on fusion drive. Of course all SSD is better, but if you only have, or can only afford a small SSD, fusion drive works very well. I had it on my first Mac Mini, and it worked flawlessly, and 99% of the time just felt like having a 1TB SSD.

It works in a similar way to auto-tiering on an enterprise storage array, but apple bought it to the desktop and good on them. And just like what is starting to happen in enterprise arrays, fusion drive will become less relevant as SSD cost continue to come down and capacities increase, but it still provides a useful tool to meet a certain cost\performance\capacity balance.

And like all storage, whether its fusion, all SSD, or pixie dust, back up your data!

Because installing the OS and applicaitons on the SSD results in the largest performance gain. After that you can self manage which files you want on the fusion drive and not. For instance a small word file barely benefits from being on the SSD so I would leave that on the HDD.

What if one drive fails? then you lose both drives worth of information and have to spend extra time restoring it. Or what if you want to format the drive for a fresh OS install. Fusion Drive is just making things more difficult and complicated.

 

[scotttnz]

Because installing the OS and applicaitons on the SSD results in the largest performance gain.

No. Putting the files (or parts of files) that are used most often, whether they are OS, Application, or Data files on the SSD results in the largest performance gain. There are plenty of bits of the OS and Applications that are almost never used, so if SSD space is at a premium it makes much more sense to but these on a cheaper spinning disk.

After that you can self manage which files you want on the fusion drive and not. For instance a small word file barely benefits from being on the SSD so I would leave that on the HDD.

And if it is infrequently accessed fusion would leave it on the HDD as well. It is just a matter of whether you want to manage where files are kept, or you want to forget about it and let the system do it for you. Neither way is wrong just because it's not what you want to do.

And really, setting up a new fusion drive if you have a failure is not that hard. If you set it up to begin with, you can do it again if needed.

For the record everything in my Mac Pro is on a 960GB SSD, except some old archive data. No fusion drive. And it's all backed up to 4 different locations. I was not arguing that everyone should use fusion drive, just that it is a good tool for meeting certain cost\performance\capacity requirements, particularly if you don't want to manage data locations yourself.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

No. Putting the files (or parts of files) that are used most often, whether they are OS, Application, or Data files on the SSD results in the largest performance gain. There are plenty of bits of the OS and Applications that are almost never used, so if SSD space is at a premium it makes much more sense to but these on a cheaper spinning disk.



And if it is infrequently accessed fusion would leave it on the HDD as well. It is just a matter of whether you want to manage where files are kept, or you want to forget about it and let the system do it for you. Neither way is wrong just because it's not what you want to do.

And really, setting up a new fusion drive if you have a failure is not that hard. If you set it up to begin with, you can do it again if needed.

For the record everything in my Mac Pro is on a 960GB SSD, except some old archive data. No fusion drive. And it's all backed up to 4 different locations. I was not arguing that everyone should use fusion drive, just that it is a good tool for meeting certain cost\performance\capacity requirements, particularly if you don't want to manage data locations yourself.

Look at your audience. People who buy the most expensive computers on the market, and your quibbling about the cost of an SSD? A gigantic 512GB SSD (Crucial brand) was recently on sale for $169. The days of super expensive SSD's are gone. Even 128GB SSD's (for OS and apps) are $50. Seriously, who would wants to micro-manage and 2nd guess what files are in the ssd cache of a fusion drive?

 

[scotttnz]

Look at your audience. People who buy the most expensive computers on the market, and your quibbling about the cost of an SSD? A gigantic 512GB SSD (Crucial brand) was recently on sale for $169. The days of super expensive SSD's are gone. Even 128GB SSD's (for OS and apps) are $50. Seriously, who would wants to micro-manage and 2nd guess what files are in the ssd cache of a fusion drive?

Ahhhh.....my audience is the thread starter, who just bought a 6 year old computer, and others like him. If he didn't have limited funds he quite possibly would have bought a new computer instead.

I am sorry that offering an alternative option for him to consider has offended you so much. I shall bow out of this thread so hopefully it can get back to what the OP was asking about.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Ahhhh.....my audience is the thread starter, who just bought a 6 year old computer, and others like him. If he didn't have limited funds he quite possibly would have bought a new computer instead.

I am sorry that offering an alternative option for him to consider has offended you so much. I shall bow out of this thread so hopefully it can get back to what the OP was asking about.

I didn't call you names or anything, why are you so sensitive?

If you look at the OP's first post, he says he WANTS to buy an SSD. The argument here is whether is makes sense to BUY the parts to make a Fusion drive or just buy an SSD, which has the best performance. I merely stated (IMHO) what I know to be true. Sorry if you were the one offended.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

No. Putting the files (or parts of files) that are used most often, whether they are OS, Application, or Data files on the SSD results in the largest performance gain. There are plenty of bits of the OS and Applications that are almost never used, so if SSD space is at a premium it makes much more sense to but these on a cheaper spinning disk.



And if it is infrequently accessed fusion would leave it on the HDD as well. It is just a matter of whether you want to manage where files are kept, or you want to forget about it and let the system do it for you. Neither way is wrong just because it's not what you want to do.

And really, setting up a new fusion drive if you have a failure is not that hard. If you set it up to begin with, you can do it again if needed.

For the record everything in my Mac Pro is on a 960GB SSD, except some old archive data. No fusion drive. And it's all backed up to 4 different locations. I was not arguing that everyone should use fusion drive, just that it is a good tool for meeting certain cost\performance\capacity requirements, particularly if you don't want to manage data locations yourself.

A) The Fusion Drive only works for files that are less than 4GB. If you try moving a larger file it'll start to use HDD space. Not an issue with separate partitions.

B) Frequently accessed doesn't mean much. If I have photoshop installed (or a game installed) and I want to open it, I don't want to wait forever just because it's on the HDD area. Also activities that are reading only a small amount of data at once like opening a movie or word doc don't benefit that much from an SSD even if they are frequently used.

C) Hassle of formatting the OS.

Why bother advocating a fusion drive if you don't even use it? Like I said, it's more marketing than performance. IRL the hassle is not worth it.

 

[DeezelP]

Thanks guys this is great advice from all of you

I've just checked the display and it all it says is 'Apple Cinema HD Display '. It has4 ports on the back aswell , two USB and two others that are the same connection used to link it to its power device/box

Also there is a CD-ROM drive, I can see it but I can't figure out how to open it in Mavericks , is it possible Its installed correctly?

In the meantime, is this the correct page to install firmware updates. Do I just choose the one applicable to me? Bit anxious about doing this...

Sorry guys, forgot to input the link.

Is it ok to do this/these firmware updates?

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL989

Are there any more/other ones I should do?

 

[h9826790]

Most likely your cMP already has the up to date firmware, you better check it before attempt the upgrade.

 

[DeezelP]

Most likely your cMP already has the up to date firmware, you better check it before attempt the upgrade.

Thanks mate

Well, Ive checked and I have the firmware for the mac pro (original). However my model says 4.1.... should I update? Is there anyway he could have changed the model number in the info box?

 

[prowlmedia]

again. fusion drive is more marketing than performance.

You are better off leaving the OS and any important files on the SSD and using the HDD for extra storage.

I am not sure why you are saying that.... 95% of the time you will feel like you have a 2TB SSD.

Recent documents / applications etc are copied to the SSD side for quick booting.

The only time you tend to feel slowdown is the first time you ever open an app or document. From then on the system watches your usage and it'll get bumped back down the use list if it's not opened again.

But as said above... it is 2 separate parts and if one part fails you lose all data.

But not a reason to not use one if you have a time machine backup.

However I still wouldn't use one in a mac pro... SSDs all the way.

 

[DeezelP]

Does anyone know if I should do the firmware update as mentioned above? It makes sense to but I'm not sure....

 

[h9826790]

4,1 is your Mac Pro's model number, what is the actual firmware version in your machine now?

 

[Machines]

again. fusion drive is more marketing than performance.

You are better off leaving the OS and any important files on the SSD and using the HDD for extra storage.

But what happens if the SSD dies ? Most SSD models have great reputations for longevity, but there are concerns they can die in as little as a month in a 4K editing environment. There is currently no data recovery service for solid state / flash devices . Only spinning rust (traditional hard drives) have this possibility . As always , back up , back up .

----------

Does anyone know if I should do the firmware update as mentioned above? It makes sense to but I'm not sure....

you might be better off upgrading the bootrom of your Mac 4,1 to a 5,1 version . hexacore Xeon and 1333 MHz memory will be then supported .

 

[ToroidalZeus]

But what happens if the SSD dies ? Most SSD models have great reputations for longevity, but there are concerns they can die in as little as a month in a 4K editing environment. There is currently no data recovery service for solid state / flash devices . Only spinning rust (traditional hard drives) have this possibility . As always , back up , back up .

then you still have all the data on the hdd.

vs

fusion where both drives lose data.