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.
SSD and 7200 best suggestion to combine?
- Thread starter clipsedsm95
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Benchmarks will show SRT to be very close to SSD and Fusion speeds, because the benchmark data is contained in the SSD portion. The problem is that the SSD portion isn't large enough for day-to-day storage of your most used apps, data, preference files, libraries, etc. and much of the access has to originate from the hard disk which is slow. The advantage of SSD and Fusion becomes very apparent when you use 256GB or 512GB SSD which hold all your frequently used data, and hard disk access is only for occasional seldom used data or programs.
No offence, but it sounds like you should start with the basics .
Look here for everything you need to know as a photographer with a Mac .
As suggested above, consider using the SSD for system, apps and user , and move all other files to a seperate, large internal HDD .
As for the user part, that includes the stuff on your desktop, and possibly large iTunes etc. libraries - move what you can as well, but careful with that iTunes, iPhoto, Apperture etc. stuff, do some research on how to use seperate drives with these programs .
Then consider a second internal SSD for current project files and scratch .
You can use RAID for any of the above, but first make sure you know what you are doing . It's easy, but requires some basic knowledge .
And don't listen to the guys discussing Fusion etc. above, keep it simple for now .
And don't listen to the guys discussing Fusion etc. above, keep it simple for now .
For a new user, the "Fusion" drive is about as simple as it gets ... a single logical drive with a standard OS X environment. Nothing special to know about the file system, what to put where, etc. Just use it normally.
The only tricky part is creating the DIY "Fusion" drive, but that is well documented here and with links to blogs and magazine articles with step by step procedures. It is only 2 commands in terminal, which may be daunting to a newcomer, but if they can follow simple instructions and verify what they type it is pretty easy, lots of newcomers have successfully done it.
Could you please provide links to where Fusion drives are "killing SSD performance or drives in record time"? I have seen no reports of this happening, other than people who think they can do better, trying to disable the Fusion corestorage links improperly and having trouble restoring their systems to operation.
Please explain "Not to mention backup and redundancy issues". Backup and restore is the same as any other drive. What are "redundancy issues", and how do they differ from a single drive system?
There is a perceived performance gain in actual use. True, data that has been relegated to the physical hard disk will be accessed at hard disk speeds, but the most used data blocks will be promoted to the SSD and will be accessed at SSD speeds. The net user experience is very much enhanced over a single hard disk drive system, although not as good as an all SSD system (but at significantly lower cost). Using a larger SSD in the Fusion array enhances the experience, especially when the size approaches or exceeds the "core system requirements" of the actual user of that system.
I prefer a 100% SSD system with self-managed hard disk archive, but for a new user such as the OP, the Fusion Drive compromise seems to work very well without requiring intimate knowledge of the OS X file structure and how to manage it.
I am not trying to be confrontational here, but there is so much mis-information and FUD being directed at new users on forums based on collective-repeating of more of the same over and over, that sometimes it is necessary to try to establish the accurate situation.
Last edited:
No offence, but it sounds like you should start with the basics .
Look here for everything you need to know as a photographer with a Mac .
As suggested above, consider using the SSD for system, apps and user , and move all other files to a seperate, large internal HDD .
As for the user part, that includes the stuff on your desktop, and possibly large iTunes etc. libraries - move what you can as well, but careful with that iTunes, iPhoto, Apperture etc. stuff, do some research on how to use seperate drives with these programs .
Then consider a second internal SSD for current project files and scratch .
You can use RAID for any of the above, but first make sure you know what you are doing . It's easy, but requires some basic knowledge .
And don't listen to the guys discussing Fusion etc. above, keep it simple for now .
As I suggested earlier this seems like the easiest and best route for me as for fusion drive im happier with the pure SSD speed thank you guys for the suggestions though.
It isn't uncool, but it's useful in only a select number of cases and never appropriate for home use.
Having tried RAID1 for a small period before and gone through 15 years of computing without it I can safely say it isn't needed unless you have a specific reason for it. I.e sequential performance.
But for the OPs case, FD sounds like the ideal solution.
I exaggerated and simplified, sorry, but the issues are basically there, I think .
The OP is a photographer, and I don't see how he can gain from a fusion setup, yet he would still suffer from its shortcomings .
For light use Fusion might be fine, and when you don't want to spend on more drives, or don't have the space or need for them .
64GB is not enough for day-to-day storage?? I beg to differ. That is more than enough for the whole OS and 6-7 very large apps (games, even).
I agree that it would be nice if SRT did more than 64GB, but for regular use, it should encompass about 90% of your daily tasks (the other 10% are, as you say, pulled from the platter drive).
The benchmarks are real world tests--boot times, app launch times, file load times, game load times, etc.
If you want to say Fusion is better, I can't disagree--it holds more data and accesses the platter drive less. However, the difference for day to day tasks is slight--that is unless you work with, say 10GB files all day (even then, you could probably work with 1-2 files at a time and not displace the OS or commonly used apps... 64GB is a lot!)
Let me also point out that this is a false choice anyway as Fusion's not available for PC and SRT is not available for mac (but this is an internet discussion, let's not let reality in on this!)
Why? It costs no more than time machine (with a Mac Pro, anyway), backs up while you're using it, and allows you to have access to your data when your HD dies (You should NEVER open file off time machine without copying it to another drive--death might ensue).
I don't use my RAID 1 professionally (anymore) but I love it. This saves a lot of annoyance with time machine and if a drive fails, I can mail it back to Samsung/Seagate/WD and still have access to my data in the meantime. I have done this and have cackled at the inferiority of Time machine while I using my data and wearing a monocle and top hat. Worth it!
I've had a few Time machine errors which have driven me up the wall, from a total loss of recognition of the TM back up (and it attempting to re-backup) when switching to a new machine to "Time Machine cannot back up right now, because **** you, that's why".
I still use Time machine for my home folder a I do like the timewarp function, but for my large data dumps I use RAID 1 or RAID10.
Having been on the end of a complete RAID 1 failure [Due to HFS corruption of a TM disk], I can safely say that RAID 1 IS NOT A BACKUP SOLUTION.
It is REDUNDANCY (Key is in the name), i.e. reduce the probability of disk failure causing data loss. Not reduce the probability of total loss of data due to failures other than the disks.
The only 100% method of preventing data loss (either by fire, flood, acts of god, etc) is by having multiple copies in multiple locations using different software methods. Period.
[Yes it is a pain doing that, but thankfully I have NEVER lost data to this method.]
If I was limited to two backup disks, one would be my TM disk in my Mac Pro and the other using CCC stored in another location, backed up weekly with archiving on.
DIY Fusion seems to work well
I have had it now since 10.8.3 came out, and it has worked as advertised, as far as I can tell. I have a 256GB Samsung 830 on a Velocity Solo X1 board, with 1TB HDD in bay one linked together as a 1.25 TB Fusion Drive. No problems so far, but I do have 2 backups just to be sure. Plenty fast: Machine boots fast, programs I use a lot start quickly, and I have not noticed any hiccups with my data. I moved to this setup from using the SSD as a boot drive, with much of my media stored on the HDD. Problem was, I was filling up my SSD, and Fusion Drive seems a better solution to always having to worry about deleting stuff off of a boot drive. Plus, my SSD gets used much more, meaning I feel like I am getting my money's worth.
I have had it now since 10.8.3 came out, and it has worked as advertised, as far as I can tell. I have a 256GB Samsung 830 on a Velocity Solo X1 board, with 1TB HDD in bay one linked together as a 1.25 TB Fusion Drive. No problems so far, but I do have 2 backups just to be sure. Plenty fast: Machine boots fast, programs I use a lot start quickly, and I have not noticed any hiccups with my data. I moved to this setup from using the SSD as a boot drive, with much of my media stored on the HDD. Problem was, I was filling up my SSD, and Fusion Drive seems a better solution to always having to worry about deleting stuff off of a boot drive. Plus, my SSD gets used much more, meaning I feel like I am getting my money's worth.