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.
Has your Fusion Drive shipped yet?
- Thread starter rkahl
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The plot thickens. After doing a Time Machine restore for an hour, the setup process asked me to set up a new user account (???) so I did. Then when I got to the desktop, none of my files transferred over. None. I called Apple and they said to run Migration Assistant manually, which I am doing now. They said that Migration Assistant works with Fusion Drives, so that was not the problem. Or so I hope. Not as painless as I had hoped...
Oh, Disk Utility shows one volume named Macintosh HD, with 1.12 gigs of storage. There is no indication of SSD.
Oh, Disk Utility shows one volume named Macintosh HD, with 1.12 gigs of storage. There is no indication of SSD.
I m literally hanging on your test speeds to decide whether to order mine with a fusion drive or the 256 ssd
Didn't Apple post relative test speeds showing Fusion slightly slower than SSD?
30 minutes to go before the second run of Migration Assistant finishes. I hope it works this time, because if it does not, I'm afraid it goes back to Apple as defective.
because apple said you couldn't.
previously linked in here:
http://9to5mac.com/2012/10/24/new-a...etails-some-of-the-fusion-drives-limitations/
apple stated you would not be able to restore an older, non fusion, backup on time machine to a fusion drive.
surprisingly, that entire warning has been removed from the apple FAQ....
No, the hard drive is a logical volume group with both the SSD and the hard disk married as one.
As requested, a screen grab of Disk Utility:
Any chance you'd be willing to crack that Mini open and find out if Apple's installing a standard enclosure SSD or using their flash-on-a-chip system found in their other 2012 Macs?
Update...Migration Assistant worked this time. I have my old desktop, dock, user settings, and so on restored as I like them.
There was a new iPhoto that I installed. I noticed that the startup time is quite a bit faster when compared to my 2010 mini.
Right now, I am downloading updates to Safari and HP Printers. No disk benchmarks until the download is finished.
The Geekbench score on the new machine is through the roof:
Mac mini 2010: 3808... http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1228316
Mac mini 2012: 12296... http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1230039
Black Magic Disk Speed Test:
2011 MacBook Air 256gig SSD: 242.0 MB/s write, 258.8 MB/s read (IIRC, this is a Samsung drive.)
2012 Mac mini, 1TB Fusion Drive: 284.6 MB/s write, 441.8 MB/s read
----------
Sorry, the only cracking I do is memory. That sounds like a job for ifixit.
There was a new iPhoto that I installed. I noticed that the startup time is quite a bit faster when compared to my 2010 mini.
Right now, I am downloading updates to Safari and HP Printers. No disk benchmarks until the download is finished.
The Geekbench score on the new machine is through the roof:
Mac mini 2010: 3808... http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1228316
Mac mini 2012: 12296... http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1230039
Black Magic Disk Speed Test:
2011 MacBook Air 256gig SSD: 242.0 MB/s write, 258.8 MB/s read (IIRC, this is a Samsung drive.)
2012 Mac mini, 1TB Fusion Drive: 284.6 MB/s write, 441.8 MB/s read
----------
Sorry, the only cracking I do is memory. That sounds like a job for ifixit.
Last edited:
Interesting. Toshiba chips then we assume? That seems to lack of a sandforce controller that's why that 280MB/s for write.
Could you try something more bizarre? lol
Try getting a 5GB file for instance divided in 50 100MB files. Unrar it. Do you notice SSD speeds rather than regular HDD ones? That'd be great!
I seem to recall the 2011 MBA had a Samsung drive. But it is over half full--maybe that impacts benchmarks.
I can probably do the segmented copy...right now, my first order of business is a blu-ray rip and conversion with Handbrake. Full movies were taking 24-48 hours to convert on the MBA. I have to hope that the new mini will smoke that result.
LOL, my new mac mini is only going to be used for ripping blu-rays and Handbrake.
Hey I was checking out your geekbench scores and saw your 12200, I also saw somebody got a score of 13100, both running 64bit. What would cause such a difference in scores if both have 16gb ram and same configuration? Post #14 below
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1480511/
Probably because mine is fully loaded with the software that I run, including some kernel extensions. His was run on a virgin install of Mac OS 10.8 server. Mine is a non-virgin 10.8.2 non server.
I'm still happy. This smokes my old mini.
This post puts the BTO SSD write/read speeds at 410/450. Wish Apple offered the mini with a 512GB SSD as it seems the extra $250 would be worth it over the fusion drive, no?
It definitely blows away any platter drive, but doesn't a 285 writespeed fall way short of Apple's promised "near SSD performance" if the Apple-supplied 256GB SSD writes at 410? I'm genuinely curious what people think, as the only thing that's kept me from ordering a Mini already is determining whether I get a Fusion drive or opt for an aftermarket 512GB SSD for $250 more.
I honestly don't think it would be worth it. What I do miss is the possibility to get a BTO with both a SSD and a regular 1TB HDD. That would've been superb.
Why do you want a 512GB SSD? I mean, all software you might use fits in a 256GB (if not a 128GB one) and storing movies and music in a SSD is a waste imo.
A 256GB SSD and a 1TB regular drive would've been perfect. SSD for apps and SO and also files you're currently using/working with. As soon as you're done, move them to the other drive just to store them.
I plan to eventually put a regular drive on my mini, which is gonna be carrying the SSD instead of the fusion drive. I just wanna wait till 7200rpm 1TB (or maybe more) drives become available in the 2.5" size bracket.
I want my OS and applications to reside on SSD along with my Aperture library, and a 256GB SSD is unfortunately too small for that. With the Fusion drive it seems the OS would be sure to house the photos I'm currently working on within the 128GB SSD without me having to move them manually, which is nice. The question for me is whether spending twice as much for a 512GB SSD is worth it, or if the Fusion drive is good enough to justify its $250 price.
If you buy an actual MBA from Apple with a 128GB SSD it'll give same results. Around 250MB/s for write and around 430MB/s for read. It's due to the sandforce controller not being present in the 128GB drives, which are Toshiba and which don't like uncompressed data.
It looks like only Samsung drives (which are used from 256GB and up) give that 430MB/s for both read AND write. (The same MBA with a 256GB SSD from Apple will achieve it).
So I guess, as long as the SSD in the fusion drive is 128GB, it's Toshiba too therefore it suffers from the same issue.
I honestly think differences aren't noticeable but in Speed tests though.
----------
Same problem then mate. Even worse I'd say. 128GB won't fit all that if a 256GB SSD is too small. If you put an SSD you'll be able to choose what you wanna be in the SSD and what in the other drive (if you add one that is). If you go for the Fusion Drive... well, Apple will choose for you, with less space to do so in the SSD.
You can always go for the SSD and then buy a Thunderbolt SSD external drive, which will give almost the same results as the internal SSD!
That's good to know, thanks!
True, but in theory the photos I'm currently working on would benefit from the SSD of the Fusion drive, even though the entire aperture library won't fit on the SSD. No?
That is in the current generation of 256GB Apple SSD. The 256GB SSD in my 2011 MBA is less of a performer than the Fusion drive, and less than the current generation of 256GB SSD.
As I said, I am happy with the performance.