SSD or Fusion, the quesiton of our century

[bingeciren]

Just for those interested ...

If there are files you absolutely don't want to ever be on the SSD portion of a Fusion drive (music, video, photo, etc. ), simply use the BootCamp application to create a separate partition on the hard drive which is outside of the Fusion management algorithm, and put your "hard disk only" files there. They will never occupy any SSD space no matter how often you access them.

This is a good tip. Is there a way to do the opposite as well? I want some of my files to reside in the SSD portion no matter how infrequently I use them.

 

[hfg]

Well ... yes ... but with reservations ...

You can separate the SSD and Hard Disk parts of the Fusion drive (back it up first!), then partition the SSD as desired, then rebuild the Fusion drive with the desired SSD partition and the hard disk. The remaining "free" SSD partition is available for your use. HOWEVER ... the oem Fusion drives have a very small SSD, which doesn't make for very large partitions if you divide it up. Also, this "static SSD" space will be seen as a separate drive and the content must be managed as such.

This is much better done on a DIY Fusion drive where you can start out with a larger SSD. I do this on my Mac Minis with 512GB SSDs so as to have a 256GB Windows partition and a 256GB Fusion (SSD part) on the SSD, that then joined with a 2TB hard disk in the other drive slot of the Mini.

 

[steve62388]

wrong. I most certainly do. All incoming data will automatically be written to the SSD, up to 4 gb. Once more than 4gb of data is imported (common), all additional data will be written to the spinner.

Wrong. More than 4GB will be written to the SSD if there is space.

FD doesn't keep a constant 4GB "landing zone" if the amount of available SSD space is greater than 4GB; rather, FD keeps a minimum of 4GB free on the SSD.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/1...ining-doc-ars-tears-open-apples-fusion-drive/

Instead of the SSD emptying itself past 4 GB (like it should), it just keeps all the extra random data on the SSD, much of which won't even benefit from the speed of the SSD.

Whilst there is space writing all data to the faster SSD portion of the Fusion Drive is perfectly logical. When more frequently accessed data is stored on the FD, what you call random data will be moved off the SSD.

I've done the research, and put in the time to become greatly educated on fusion drive. It seems you haven't done the same. Maybe you can start by reading the posting I previously linked. I personally read the whole thing. Maybe if you do the same you can begin to educate yourself on fusion drive and SSDs.

Doing 'research' means nothing if you misinterpret the data to reach false conclusions. Here are some more examples of you making claims that are contradicted by the evidence:-
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/case-for-unfusing-the-fusion-drive.1975280/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/how-long-will-fusion-drive-on-late-2013-imac-last.2013599/

 

[maflynn]

This is much better done on a DIY Fusion drive where you can start out with a larger SSD. I do this on my Mac Minis with 512GB SSDs so as to have a 256GB Windows partition and a 256GB Fusion (SSD part) on the SSD, that then joined with a 2TB hard disk in the other drive slot of the Mini.

No question that's the best, but opening up an iMac is much harder then opening up an Mac Mini. I've upgraded my mini to a SSD (2009 model which I needed a putty knife), and it wasn't fun, I'm not really keen on trying to open up my iMac.

You can get great performance from an external SSD plugged into the USB (or TB) port. I'm doing that right now, as I split up my Fusion drive and put Windows on the SSD portion. My windows has a very fast SSD, and my OSX drive is quite fast as well. Best of both worlds

 

[ejemplo1111]

Hello everyone, i have been following this thread i am looking for advice
I am a photographer and do some editing and Lightroom, apart from the usual web surfing and movie streaming. I was ready to buy the iMac 27" 256ssd 3.3ghz/390 for usd $2300 plus taxes straight form the apple website, since i have worked all my life with ssd drives. But my friend is selling me his, 3.3ghz/390 2TB FUSION drive late 2015 model, still under apple warranty until the middle of 2017, for $1600. Should i take the jump? I really wanted the SSD, but now i can't justify a 900 dollars difference (if we include tax).
What would you do in my situation? please any advice from you guys will be greatly appreciated! I just have yo give him an answer by next week

thanks for reading

 

[IngerMan]

Hello everyone, i have been following this thread i am looking for advice
I am a photographer and do some editing and Lightroom, apart from the usual web surfing and movie streaming. I was ready to buy the iMac 27" 256ssd 3.3ghz/390 for usd $2300 plus taxes straight form the apple website, since i have worked all my life with ssd drives. But my friend is selling me his, 3.3ghz/390 2TB FUSION drive late 2015 model, still under apple warranty until the middle of 2017, for $1600. Should i take the jump? I really wanted the SSD, but now i can't justify a 900 dollars difference (if we include tax).
What would you do in my situation? please any advice from you guys will be greatly appreciated! I just have yo give him an answer by next week

thanks for reading

That seems like a good price, $1,500 is even better if you can wing it. I would defiantly consider the savings between the 2 choices you listed.

 

[steve62388]

Hello everyone, i have been following this thread i am looking for advice
I am a photographer and do some editing and Lightroom, apart from the usual web surfing and movie streaming. I was ready to buy the iMac 27" 256ssd 3.3ghz/390 for usd $2300 plus taxes straight form the apple website, since i have worked all my life with ssd drives. But my friend is selling me his, 3.3ghz/390 2TB FUSION drive late 2015 model, still under apple warranty until the middle of 2017, for $1600. Should i take the jump? I really wanted the SSD, but now i can't justify a 900 dollars difference (if we include tax).
What would you do in my situation? please any advice from you guys will be greatly appreciated! I just have yo give him an answer by next week

thanks for reading

I think you answered your own question... you can't justify the $900 difference.

Although I try to avoid buying things from family and friends because if something goes wrong then it can cause problems. If you're absolutely cool about that and will be able to handle it then it sounds like a reasonable deal.

 

[mmomega]

I go pure SSD Every. Single. Time.

I did Fusion one time, in 2012. Just me, I'll never get a computer with a HDD in it again.
I do not need extremely fast external storage personally so I have 20TB in a NAS drive and all of my computers have at least 512GB SSD and they are quite speedy.

 

[ejemplo1111]

I go pure SSD Every. Single. Time.

I did Fusion one time, in 2012. Just me, I'll never get a computer with a HDD in it again.
I do not need extremely fast external storage personally so I have 20TB in a NAS drive and all of my computers have at least 512GB SSD and they are quite speedy.

[doublepost=1482100820][/doublepost]I am just trying to make sense on why so much hate for the Fusion , our office use all iMacs with fusion drives and not even once have I heard them complain about their performance , maybe they don't push them hard enough ?

I figure I will buy it off my friend for 1600 and save my self some money until the next generation iMac comes in , the. I can resell the fusion if I'm not too happy with it , I can probably get 1400-1500 for it


You can say I'm just trying to convince myself to save 900 , but you have to admit , that's a big chunk of change I can use for extra memory

 

[Phoenixx]

Given that it is the SSD portion of a Fusion Drive that actually matters and makes the difference, my biggest suggestion here is to go pure SSD.

External spinning drives are so cheap, that if you need the extra storage, simply get one of these for your data. This way you get all the benefits of a Fusion Drive in terms of large amounts of storage and speed with none of the disadvantages.

 

[gnasher729]

Fusion is nothing more than a gimmick. Why do I say that well once the SSD with the fusion drive fills up, you experience near spinner speeds all the time. This is due to the fact that SSDs decline in speed once they are filled to a certain percent and the fusion algorithm will fill the SSD to its max besides only a couple gb.

This is so totally incorrect. The SSD drive that is part of a Fusion drive doesn't have the same access patterns as a normal SSD drive. SSD drives normally slow down on writes when almost full, because it gets harder finding consecutive empty space, and SSD cannot overwrite one 4k block in a 128 kb page. Fusion leaves 4GB unused to cache writes. Whatever you write is turned into full speed sequential writes into those unused 4GB. And then Fusion works _in the background_ to organise the written data in an optimal way.

 

[kschendel]

[doublepost=1482100820][/doublepost]I am just trying to make sense on why so much hate for the Fusion , our office use all iMacs with fusion drives and not even once have I heard them complain about their performance ...

The Fusion drive is a compromise between cost, speed, and space. It's a pretty good compromise as such things go, but it's not ideal in any of the three directions. I think eventually fast AND reliable SSD prices will drop to the point where a fusion drive is unnecessary, but until then, it has its place. Like any caching setup, it has to assume some sort of general access pattern as a design target, and like all caches, it will perform poorly (perhaps very poorly) for a few access patterns.

I suspect that people who dislike the fusion drive intensely either a) happen to have access patterns that the Fusion isn't good at serving, or b) are preaching from a position of ignorance.

If you have the money, a pure SSD is probably a better solution for performance. If space is your sole issue, a rotating drive is still the answer today, unless money really is no object. If you're looking for a compromise that is pretty good, most of the time, under many usage loads, the Fusion is the answer at the moment. How long that will be true, I've no idea.

 

[varian55zx]

This is so totally incorrect. The SSD drive that is part of a Fusion drive doesn't have the same access patterns as a normal SSD drive. SSD drives normally slow down on writes when almost full, because it gets harder finding consecutive empty space, and SSD cannot overwrite one 4k block in a 128 kb page. Fusion leaves 4GB unused to cache writes. Whatever you write is turned into full speed sequential writes into those unused 4GB. And then Fusion works _in the background_ to organise the written data in an optimal way.

I don't buy it. People aren't buying this, friend.
[doublepost=1482132161][/doublepost]

Wrong. More than 4GB will be written to the SSD if there is space.

FD doesn't keep a constant 4GB "landing zone" if the amount of available SSD space is greater than 4GB; rather, FD keeps a minimum of 4GB free on the SSD.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/1...ining-doc-ars-tears-open-apples-fusion-drive/



Whilst there is space writing all data to the faster SSD portion of the Fusion Drive is perfectly logical. When more frequently accessed data is stored on the FD, what you call random data will be moved off the SSD.



Doing 'research' means nothing if you misinterpret the data to reach false conclusions. Here are some more examples of you making claims that are contradicted by the evidence:-
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/case-for-unfusing-the-fusion-drive.1975280/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/how-long-will-fusion-drive-on-late-2013-imac-last.2013599/

Once you can explain to me why fusion drive slows down as it fills up, please do!

What you all have in common is none of you have even used fusion drive, you probably don't even have an iMac.

If you could give me another explanation why fusion drive slows as it fills up, I would listen, but you do not have that.
[doublepost=1482132475][/doublepost]

FD is kind of like the automatic transmission of a car. Not only it is perfectly adequate for most people most of the time, but it is also desirable.

However, just like the automatic transmission cannot anticipate to downshift on an approaching curve while any experienced driver seeing the curve ahead knows to downshift manually before entering the curve, FD cannot fully anticipate each user's requirement, especially if the usage pattern does not follow a regular pattern. I cannot tell the FD never ever put my music files on the SSD even though I use them quite frequently for instance.

Some of us, like you and I, prefer the manual transmission.

I actually agree with this fully. Well put.

It is a shame that so many other people are unable to understand the advantage to having split drives.

It is quite a curious phenomenon, as a matter of fact.

I am running off a multiple-split drive setup right now (512 internal SSD from Apple, and multiple external hard drives). The absolute last thing I would ever want is to create some sort of fusion set up between them.

And yet, these haters (and no that is not an insulting term, it is an accurate term because they hate everything that is not fusion drive, learn basic language lol), these people can only understand that fusion drive is the only way. Is this more of Apple's marketing magic at work? I know they're good, maybe too good!!

 

[rbart]

Hey mr Varian55, you should read this:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-vs-fusion-drive-imac.1846485/page-5#post-22748905

 

[steve62388]

I don't buy it. People aren't buying this, friend.
[doublepost=1482132161][/doublepost]
Once you can explain to me why fusion drive slows down as it fills up, please do!

What you all have in common is none of you have even used fusion drive, you probably don't even have an iMac.

If you could give me another explanation why fusion drive slows as it fills up, I would listen, but you do not have that.
[doublepost=1482132475][/doublepost]
I actually agree with this fully. Well put.

It is a shame that so many other people are unable to understand the advantage to having split drives.

It is quite a curious phenomenon, as a matter of fact.

I am running off a multiple-split drive setup right now (512 internal SSD from Apple, and multiple external hard drives). The absolute last thing I would ever want is to create some sort of fusion set up between them.

And yet, these haters (and no that is not an insulting term, it is an accurate term because they hate everything that is not fusion drive, learn basic language lol), these people can only understand that fusion drive is the only way. Is this more of Apple's marketing magic at work? I know they're good, maybe too good!!

On different threads (of which I've linked in an earlier post here) you keep changing your justification for splitting a Fusion Drive. It used to be that you thought you could out think the Fusion algorithm by moving what you feel is your most commonly used data onto the SSD portion of a split FD, you can't. On a day to day basis the FD will automatically do this without you needing to spend the time thinking about it.

Earlier in this thread you complain that when transferring 200GB of data the FD slows down to spinner speeds. Of course it does. That would exceed the capacity of the SSD (notwithstanding the data would then get shuffled around onto or off the SSD according to how often it's accessed). But how many people regularly transfer that much data? You might, but there is absolutely no way the majority of people you advise do the same.

Would a 2TB SSD outperform a 2TB Fusion Drive? Of course it does, but they are nowhere in the same ballpark when it comes to price. A FD is an excellent compromise between storage capacity, performance and price.

My beef is with you popping up on every single SSD / Fusion thread advising new users to split their FD drive. It's bad advice and in almost all cases will not suit their needs. I don't care how you run your system, but I have a massive problem with you telling new users who don't know any better to do the same.

 

[varian55zx]

My beef is you popping up on every single SSD / Fusion thread advising new users to split their FD drive. It's bad advice and in almost all cases will not suit their needs. I don't care how you run your system, but I have a massive problem with you telling new users who don't know any better to do the same.

This isn't what I'm doing. I'm offering information on the splitting vs non splitting.

Why don't you mind your own business friend, not appreciating reading from you.

 

[GSDLVR123]

Hello everyone, i have been following this thread i am looking for advice
I am a photographer and do some editing and Lightroom, apart from the usual web surfing and movie streaming. I was ready to buy the iMac 27" 256ssd 3.3ghz/390 for usd $2300 plus taxes straight form the apple website, since i have worked all my life with ssd drives. But my friend is selling me his, 3.3ghz/390 2TB FUSION drive late 2015 model, still under apple warranty until the middle of 2017, for $1600. Should i take the jump? I really wanted the SSD, but now i can't justify a 900 dollars difference (if we include tax).
What would you do in my situation? please any advice from you guys will be greatly appreciated! I just have yo give him an answer by next week

thanks for reading

I'm NO expert - just someone who bought this unit new (2015 27" 5K with 2TB Fusion upgraded to 32GB)...bought it for my wife to use as our home machine. I also bought her the 3Tb Time Capsule for back up. I know she uses it 4-5 hours a day for teaching and business. She has a lot of pics (she has a GoPro and a Nikon DSLR)...she has had not issues at all and it's fast...we have a lot of Apple products (1 2015 13" I7 MBP 16gb, 256 SSD, 2 2016 touch bar 13" with 16GB, couple of Airs with SSD, plus lots of Ipads)...again I don't know much about SSD vs Fusion, Hard, etc and certainly can't argue specks at any level- no desire to learn - but in our everyday life this is our best machine in the house.

 

[Fishrrman]

ejemplo:

The 2tb iMac DOES have an SSD inside. It has a 128gb SSD -and- a 2tb HDD. These are the two drives that make up the "fused" drive.

You can use it either in "fused" mode (as it probably is now), or you can "manually de-fuse" the two drives. They will then appear on the desktop as a 128gb drive (SSD) and a 2tb drive (HDD).

Just keep your OS, apps, and accounts on the SSD.
Keep your photo libraries on the HDD.

That will keep the SSD running "lean and clean".

 

[steve62388]

This isn't what I'm doing. I'm offering information on the splitting vs non splitting.

Yeah, it is. You're posting on threads started by Newbies requesting advice and then wade in with a whole lot of inaccurate 'information'.

Why don't you mind your own business friend, not appreciating reading from you.

Well tough luck, it's a public forum. As long as you're disseminating FUD then people will be here to refute it.

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
This thread seems to be veering off the bunny trail and the topic has been rehashed enough that there's no reason to keep this open.