Why a Fusion Drive si better than a 256Gb SSD (personal opinion)

[dyn]

That's all complete nonsense and quite a bold statement from someone who obviously has never worked in data recovery. Encrypted or not, it's very easy to recover data from ANY HDD. I've done it many times for both the military and the private sector... and guess what, the average user is an idiot. Backups are an inconvenience so preaching how backing up is the best data recovery only works on people who are willing to do it. Try living in the real world for a change.

I'm a sysadmin from the real world, not a datarecovery specialist desperately trying to protect his business like you clearly are. If we do datarecovery we use tools and they take a lot of time. Putting in a new drive and restoring the backup is an awful lot quicker. Since a lot of people have their systems installed quite some time ago (2 years or more is not uncommon) doing a reinstall and restoring data has an additional benefit: you start from scratch. People will find that their newly set up system works better.

If the drive is defective you can't easily recover the data from it. It requires a specialist who will dismantle the drive and read out the data on it. This is not only expensive, it's also without guarantee that they'll recover everything. No sane data recovery specialist will give you a 100% recovery guarantee. Each time you recover data it's a gamble. You have no idea if the data is intact and thus usable. A backup isn't because a backup is only a backup if you can successfully restore it. Backups are tested. Data recovery is for when everything else failed, ones last hope. Recovery/restore is only part of the story. It's not like that recovering/restoring data will end up in the exact same system. Often times it requires quite some work to get things to work properly again (any sysadmin will tell you). Anyone who has done anything with licensing will also know (GUIDs that change due to a restore/recovery...rather nasty).

Backups are the ones that are quick and easy. In OS X they made it so simple the average user is able to make and restore backups. Data restoration however is specialistic work and requires special and expensive software, hardware and even cleanrooms. It is simply too expensive, takes too much time to be useful. Most of the time simply losing the data is much better (cheaper and recreating the data takes less time). I'm not talking consumers here, I'm talking large businesses here so you can imagine that this is not even an option for the average consumer.

Most companies have a very simple policy: the user is responsible for his own data. If you mess it up than it is your problem. No backup to restore from? Your problem because you're the one who has to explain to your boss why you lost the data and why you didn't take care of it. And yes, people do get fired over things like this.

So again, a proper storage plan means you plan for disaster. Data recovery is not part of it. That's what you do when your plan failed completely. And by no means does recovering data mean that it will be actually usable.

 

[joema2]

I'm a sysadmin from the real world...If we do datarecovery we use tools and they take a lot of time. Putting in a new drive and restoring the backup is an awful lot quicker... Most of the time simply losing the data is much better (cheaper and recreating the data takes less time). I'm not talking consumers here, I'm talking large businesses here so you can imagine that this is not even an option for the average consumer....

This is absolutely correct. I worked as a database data recovery specialist for many years. Even Fortune 100 customers were often willing to write off lost data -- not because of the money required to recover it, but the time.

By "recover" I mean effectively repair or recover the damaged data to the degree it can be relied on and put back in production. It does not mean salvaging little pieces or excerpts for forensic or intelligence purposes. That is much easier.

Given some thought, the technical reason for this is obvious. Corruption (either due to hardware or software failure) causes inconsistencies in the internal data structures, whether at the file system or database level. IOW there are conflicting indications of what constitutes valid data.

That's why automated repair programs often can't fix the problem or recover data. It requires a human to painstakingly use low-level editing tools and analyze the contradictory internal structures, make decisions and reconcile them. Especially if the data is production related, the time cost to recover it is often greater than just accepting the loss.

 

[aevan]

And how is that different from your opening post? Answer: it's not

There is a notable difference - I didn't hide the fact that my advice is intended for people that have similar usage scenarios to mine - and I gave a detailed description of that usage.

On the other hand, the pro-ssd crowd just claims that SSDs are a better choice. For everyone. Always. Look at their posts - yes, everyone, always.

Do you now see how my opening post is different?
Answer: it doesn't claim to be universal advice. Instead, I describe a specific usage scenario which, in my opinion, is applicable for most, but not all people.

There are various use cases that one could think of. An ssd will be the best choice in some of them but the same will go for the hdd and for the Fusion Drive.

I agree and that's what I've been saying all along.

The question is what is better for average users. Here we enter into the realm of personal opinions and I tried to rationally explain mine.

If you think that's not fair then why did you start this topic in the first place?

Because for every "should I get a Fusion Drive or SSD" topic and for every "what upgrades should I get" topic the same people claimed that a SSD is a better option for everyone. Even for people who had very simple usage cases. Also, there was a lot of unintentional misinformation.

Also, I would once again like to point out I focused specifically on 256Gb + 1Tb USB HDD drive vs the Fusion Drive. And I tried to explain why I feel that for most people this would serve as the best option. The 'other side' responded with very specific usage cases that are, at the very least, very uncommon. Or by comparing a Fusion Drive to the much more expensive 1Tb SSDs or SSD external drives.

I hope this explains my point of view.

 

[lJoSquaredl]

I've never needed the space, I just like having an ultra fast boot drive and use externals for everything else.

Also there's something to be said for the reduction in heat, noise, weight and non moving mechanical parts that are more prone to breaking/busting, especially from drops.

 

[aevan]

I've never needed the space, I just like having an ultra fast boot drive and use externals for everything else.

Also there's something to be said for the reduction in heat, noise, weight and non moving mechanical parts that are more prone to breaking/busting, especially from drops.

While there are valid reasons to go pure SSD, as some have noted in this thread, almost all the reasons you mentioned here are not really good in a SSD vs Fusion Drive debate.

Ultra fast boot drive - A Fusion Drive is an ultra fast boot drive, as the entire OS and apps are on the PCIe SSD.

Reduction in heat - not sure where this "FD generates more heat" is coming from, but both the SSD on my MacBook and the SSD part of the FD run at similar temperatures as the HDD part (roughly 35-36 degrees). I don't know about regular HDDs, but a Fusion Drive does not generate more heat than a pure SSD. If it does, it's 1-2 degrees celsius difference. In fact, my iStat Menus constantly report that the SSD is 1 degree warmer than the HDD.

Noise - new Fusion Drives are practically silent. You're not going to hear one in an iMac. If you hear anything, it's going to be the system fan.

Weight - means practically nothing in an iMac. And I doubt the difference is perceivable when you move it around.

Mechanical parts prone to breaking especially from drops - I really hope you're not dropping your iMac. If you are, I'd guess HDD failures are the least of your worries.


As I said many times - SSDs are the future, there are some cases where a 256Gb + Externals could be better, but the points you made just don't stand. I can't shake the feeling that some people are just justifying their purchase by quoting the same things over and over again (noise, heat, reliability). These are NOT the reasons to get an SSD over a Fusion Drive, especially a 256Gb one. Get a larger SSD if you don't mind paying more and get a 256Gb SSD only if you already have good external storage or you can make good use of that extra SSD space for, say, video editing. Please, really, the noise/heat/reliability argument is getting old. At least try out a latest gen Fusion Drive before making these statements.

 

[dyn]

There is a notable difference - I didn't hide the fact that my advice is intended for people that have similar usage scenarios to mine - and I gave a detailed description of that usage.

8<

Answer: it doesn't claim to be universal advice. Instead, I describe a specific usage scenario which, in my opinion, is applicable for most, but not all people.

Which is the exact same thing as many others here are doing as well but you are dismissing them and that contradicts with your own first post.

Because for every "should I get a Fusion Drive or SSD" topic and for every "what upgrades should I get" topic the same people claimed that a SSD is a better option for everyone. Even for people who had very simple usage cases. Also, there was a lot of unintentional misinformation.

This topic is no exception to that list. The problem is that in most cases people need to simply start their own topic with their own scenarios to decide which one is best for them. There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to a drive or advice for a drive. If the aim was to spark a discussion about when to choose ssd and when to choose Fusion Drive the first post does a very poor job because it lays out a specific scenario that leaves (almost) no room for discussion. You're basically asking people to comment on what is good for that specific situation, not good in general.

 

[aevan]

Which is the exact same thing as many others here are doing as well but you are dismissing them and that contradicts with your own first post.

Not true, or at least we're not talking about the same forums. 90% of people here just claim SSD is the future, get SSD no matter what, etc. Even when people come and specifically ask for advice between a, say, a CPU or GPU upgrade for the base model, people answer by "get an SSD". I didn't see one get-a-SSD advice that explains a specific usage case, to be honest. Instead, they are usually based on ad hoc conclusions that Fusion Drives will cause some mythical additional heat or break. Or "get an SSD because they are better".
You can claim others are doing the exact same thing as me, but I'm not seeing it at all. At least I provided one usage case where a Fusion Drive is better than a 256Gb SSD.

This topic is no exception to that list. The problem is that in most cases people need to simply start their own topic with their own scenarios to decide which one is best for them. There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to a drive or advice for a drive. If the aim was to spark a discussion about when to choose ssd and when to choose Fusion Drive the first post does a very poor job because it lays out a specific scenario that leaves (almost) no room for discussion.

Quite the contrary, I clearly said all of this was my opinion given as counterbalance to constant and universal advice on these forums that people should just get SSDs - and invited people to give their own viewpoints, just asking that they try and do it without claiming something is better 'just because'. And one of the first replies was "SSDs all the way. End of story". Go ahead, check it out. Then there were numerous posts claiming some drastic difference in performance (it doesn't exist, but who cares) or trying to compare a FD to a 1Tb SSD (although we're talking about 256Gb ones). Then there were posts that claimed HDDs are old technology, how they will break, etc. In fact, I challenge you to find ONE post where someone is explaining a valid usage case where a 256Gb SSD is better enough to justify additional cost and hassle of an eternal drive. These cases do exist, but I didn't see them mentioned on these forums. Instead: "just get an SSD, they are better."

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with what you just said. Small SSDs may or may not be better than Fusion Drives, but if they are, no one is giving good arguments for it here.

 

[Alesc]

While there are valid reasons to go pure SSD, as some have noted in this thread, almost all the reasons you mentioned here are not really good in a SSD vs Fusion Drive debate.

Ultra fast boot drive - A Fusion Drive is an ultra fast boot drive, as the entire OS and apps are on the PCIe SSD.

Reduction in heat - not sure where this "FD generates more heat" is coming from, but both the SSD on my MacBook and the SSD part of the FD run at similar temperatures as the HDD part (roughly 35-36 degrees). I don't know about regular HDDs, but a Fusion Drive does not generate more heat than a pure SSD. If it does, it's 1-2 degrees celsius difference. In fact, my iStat Menus constantly report that the SSD is 1 degree warmer than the HDD.

Noise - new Fusion Drives are practically silent. You're not going to hear one in an iMac. If you hear anything, it's going to be the system fan.

Weight - means practically nothing in an iMac. And I doubt the difference is perceivable when you move it around.

Mechanical parts prone to breaking especially from drops - I really hope you're not dropping your iMac. If you are, I'd guess HDD failures are the least of your worries.


As I said many times - SSDs are the future, there are some cases where a 256Gb + Externals could be better, but the points you made just don't stand. I can't shake the feeling that some people are just justifying their purchase by quoting the same things over and over again (noise, heat, reliability). These are NOT the reasons to get an SSD over a Fusion Drive, especially a 256Gb one. Get a larger SSD if you don't mind paying more and get a 256Gb SSD only if you already have good external storage or you can make good use of that extra SSD space for, say, video editing. Please, really, the noise/heat/reliability argument is getting old. At least try out a latest gen Fusion Drive before making these statements.

100% agree...

 

[gnasher729]

Pick an HDD drive from the wrong manufacturer, optimised for good benchmark numbers instead of reliability, turn off power on your Mac unexpectedly, and poof! the contents of your HDD is gone forever.

Works both ways. I'd rather take an identical risk with greater gains. Any logical person would.

Andy, you don't know what you are talking about.

A hard disk drive is simple. You tell it to write data somewhere, it writes it somewhere. If there is a crash, that bit of data may be destroyed, but 99.99% of your hard drive are just fine.

An SSD drive doesn't work like that. An SSD drive has to continuously find space where to write the data. And it has to remember what is written where. And that information is crucial for using the SSD drive, and when it is messed up, your SSD drive is history.

That's why enterprise drives have a huge capacitor so they can guarantee that they finish everything they started even if the power goes down. And that's why responsible manufacturers of cheaper drives continuously update the information what is stored where, so the drive runs slower but is reliable. And that's why irresponsible manufacturers of cheap drives cache the information in RAM as much as possible, and when you have a power failure at the wrong moment, your drive is gone.

 

[desantii]

So used to SSD that would find it hard go to any any size traditional drive anymore

 

[andy9l]

Why a Fusion Drive si better than a 256Gb SSD (personal opinion)

Andy, you don't know what you are talking about. .

We all know how SSDs and HDDs differ. It was merely a simplistic example of drive failure. I should have removed the 'lost forever' piece, granted.

As many have pointed out, the whole FD HDD data recovery argument is moot for anyone who has a backup.

 

[dyn]

You can claim others are doing the exact same thing as me, but I'm not seeing it at all. At least I provided one usage case where a Fusion Drive is better than a 256Gb SSD.

You are not understanding what I'm saying. It's not about ssd or Fusion Drive being better. It's about how you presented it. You gave a use case that was suited to a particular kind of drive which is what the others are doing as well. To word it differently:

You say: buy Fusion Drive if you don't have much money and/or don't do heavy computing.
Others say: buy ssd if you have the money and/or do heavy computing.

Same difference

In fact, I challenge you to find ONE post where someone is explaining a valid usage case where a 256Gb SSD is better enough to justify additional cost and hassle of an eternal drive. These cases do exist, but I didn't see them mentioned on these forums.

Start reading your own replies (you actually confirm one of those use cases and started complaining that he's doing the same thing as you do) and many other posts on this forum. It has been mentioned several times that ssd's aid in any use case that requires fast io/generates lots of iops. Among them are things like video editing, databases (some of the people here run OS X Server!) and virtualisation (which is sluggish on a Fusion Drive due to data being on the hdd and needing to move to ssd...in blocks thus not the entire virtual drive is being moved). Having multiple drives has been discussed here: you separate OS and apps from your actual data (documents, photos, movies, etc.) which is common practice in IT. The reasons for that are quite simple: it makes recovery really easy and you can use whatever medium is best for the data. Have OS and apps on an ssd so you can quickly start them and put data, like mp3's, that see no benefit from anything faster than an ordinary hdd on an hdd or maybe even a NAS. If your data is more than 3TB then there simply isn't any other choice but to go external.

There are also some that point out the added complexity of having 2 drives (lo and behold, a Fusion Drive is no different than the dual drive setup because it consist of 2 drives!) Fusion Drive is just a software thing (what happens if an OS X update/upgrade messes it up...): it's a volume spanned across an hdd and an ssd where most used data is moved off the hdd to the ssd in blocks. Fusion Drive does perform like any ordinary hdd because it consists of one. The hdd cannot magically work faster so any data that is on it will be limited to the speed of the hdd. A Fusion Drive only has a very minor added bonus because it can move the data blocks that are used often from hdd to ssd so you have the full speed of an ssd. And that's also the disadvantage. If you want to have the speed of an ssd the data first needs to be moved from hdd to ssd. Keep in mind that the ssd is limited in size, just 128GB of which not all can be used for data (there is overhead for things like the partition, volume stuff, filesystem).

That's why a lot of things on the Fusion Drive are not faster than on an ordinary hdd. The added benefit of Fusion Drive over an ordinary hdd is just very limited. Most users won't tell the difference in machines like an iMac 27" because Apple uses 3.5" disks which are quite fast. If you want to safe money then stick to ordinary disks, buy the ssd if you want raw speed and the Fusion Drive if there isn't an option for an hdd. Fusion Drive works nice in benchmarks and for booting OS X (OS X will always be on the ssd which adds to the overhead, iirc the apps will also be on the ssd) but for real life use it doesn't add anything. If speed really doesn't matter all that much then getting the Fusion Drive is just as much a waste of money as the ssd option will be. The link to Anandtech posted by andy9l is a good overview of performance of a Fusion Drive. A previous post from roadkill401 has the same explanation as the Anandtech article.

Coming back to the Fusion Drive speed: since it moves blocks of data the speed is not the same. If you need something where the speed is the same or at least is somewhat predictable you can't use the Fusion Drive. An ordinary hdd is a better option and the ssd is the best in this case. When you do rendering, compiling and so on you want the speed to be predictable/continuous.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with what you just said. Small SSDs may or may not be better than Fusion Drives, but if they are, no one is giving good arguments for it here.

So are the Fusion Drive arguments. They are very weak and not thought out at all. No one seems to understand what a Fusion Drive actually is, why this causes problems and why because of that the ssd is more reliable. Only using sequential speeds in case of an ssd where it is iops, latency and random read/write speeds that actually matter when it comes to a desktop/laptop is another example. It's things like these that are missing.

Andy, you don't know what you are talking about.

Clearly neither do you...

A hard disk drive is simple. You tell it to write data somewhere, it writes it somewhere. If there is a crash, that bit of data may be destroyed, but 99.99% of your hard drive are just fine.

An SSD drive doesn't work like that. An SSD drive has to continuously find space where to write the data. And it has to remember what is written where. And that information is crucial for using the SSD drive, and when it is messed up, your SSD drive is history.

...because this is incorrect. Both an ssd and an hdd have to find where to put data and where data stored. Both of them store data in chunks on the drive. The exact way how they are doing it differs because it's different technology (magnetic vs electronic). The main reason why you have to defragment an hdd is because it stores data *somewhere*. The main reason why something like "seek time" is mentioned in hdd specs is because it stores data *somewhere*. And so on.

That's why enterprise drives have a huge capacitor so they can guarantee that they finish everything they started even if the power goes down.

No that's not why they do it. They do it to prevent dataloss or data corruption because the drive didn't write the data from its buffer (which is just RAM) to disk. If the power to the drive fails the buffer will be flushed causing dataloss. If you think about it, it's quite a gimmicky feature. It's nice that the buffer gets written to disk but that doesn't mean the data will be intact. If only part of the data was in the buffer only part of the data will be written to disk. Having only part of the data means data corruption/dataloss. Don't forget that in case of power loss this can also affect other components. For certain power loss scenarios just having an UPS is enough. The reason enterprise drives have things like that is to make them more reliable. It's about the entire feature set, not just 1 feature. And it isn't limited to an ssd, look up the main reason why RAID controllers have a BBU and what the main issue of RAID5 is.

Datarecovery for a Fusion Drive is also complicated since it is spanned across an ssd and an hdd AND data is moved between them in blocks. That means that one block can be on the hdd and the other on the ssd. Now think about what this means for datarecovery Again, backups are quick and easy, datarecovery is only for when everything else failed.

 

[Alesc]

[...]
That's why a lot of things on the Fusion Drive are not faster than on an ordinary hdd. The added benefit of Fusion Drive over an ordinary hdd is just very limited. Most users won't tell the difference in machines like an iMac 27" because Apple uses 3.5" disks which are quite fast.
[...]

Please try one before posting these nonsenses!!!
In daily use, I can't tell the difference between my iMac (FD) and my MBA 13" 2015 (the one with the super fast SSD): boot or launching apps and documents, both can't be compared to a machine with just a traditionnal HDD.

 

[redheeler]

You say: buy Fusion Drive if you don't have much money and/or don't do heavy computing.
Others say: buy ssd if you have the money and/or do heavy computing.

Same difference

+1. I argue SSD with external storage if you can and are wiling to spend extra, others argue Fusion Drive if you're on a tight budget or are not willing to spend extra. In reality it's actually the same point.

However, for anyone to argue that a Fusion Drive is better than a 256 GB SSD with external storage, well that's simply not true. It can be considered more cost-effective for some types of usage, which is why Apple includes it on their baseline Retina iMac (in addition to the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread), although that's not to say those types of users won't see benefit from spending the extra $100 for a twice as big 256 GB SSD and easily replaceable USB 3 external storage.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Not saying it's better

+1. I argue SSD with external storage if you can and are wiling to spend extra, others argue Fusion Drive if you're on a tight budget or are not willing to spend extra. In reality it's actually the same point.

However, for anyone to argue that a Fusion Drive is better than a 256 GB SSD with external storage, well that's simply not true. It can be considered more cost-effective for some types of usage, which is why Apple includes it on their baseline Retina iMac (in addition to the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread), although that's not to say those types of users won't see benefit from spending the extra $100 for a twice as big 256 GB SSD and easily replaceable USB 3 external storage.

It's just the same, see the post above apart from in very specific use cases a fusion dive will work exactly the same as an ssd and external storage. So for most users it is just as good and therefore a fantastic option to have.

 

[gnasher729]

Clearly neither do you...

...because this is incorrect. Both an ssd and an hdd have to find where to put data and where data stored. Both of them store data in chunks on the drive. The exact way how they are doing it differs because it's different technology (magnetic vs electronic). The main reason why you have to defragment an hdd is because it stores data *somewhere*. The main reason why something like "seek time" is mentioned in hdd specs is because it stores data *somewhere*. And so on.

Dyn, don't talk about what you don't understand. The difference isn't magnetic vs. electronic. The main difference is that an SSD drive cannot overwrite existing data. It can only write data into fresh, unused space, and it can erase large blocks of data (usually 128KB). And that makes SSD drives complicated. Here's what happens:

The file system decides in a rather complicated way at which block of a drive data is stored (rather complicated because it involves partitions etc.). Let's say it decides to write 4KB to block 234,581,920 on the drive. So far hard drive and SSD drive are identical.

The hard drive can just calculate where block 234,581,920 on the drive is. It's a simple calculation, always leading to the same result. Block 234,581,920 will always be written to the same location on the disk.

Not so on an SSD drive. An SSD drive cannot write to a block until it is empty. So if you overwrite block 234,581,920 with new data, that is the exact location where the data can _not_ be written. The SSD controller must find a new place where to write the data (say block 317,287,420 was empty so that is used), and then it must remember that what the operating system thinks is block 234,581,920 is actually stored at block 317,287,420. And if _that_ information gets lost, which happens on cheap drives that are unreliable by design, your SSD drive is complete toast.

 

[aevan]

although that's not to say those types of users won't see benefit from spending the extra $100 for a twice as big 256 GB SSD and easily replaceable USB 3 external storage.

I don't think they will see a benefit, 99% of the time. They will, however, notice the extra $100 and cables sticking out of their Mac.

Seriously, what benefit, other than a few specific cases? Sigh, no point in arguing this anymore. At least people have this discussion here, they can read it and make up their own mind. At least that is accomplished.

 

[matreya]

I don't think they will see a benefit, 99% of the time. They will, however, notice the extra $100 and cables sticking out of their Mac.

They'll also notice it when they have to put their iMac in for service because the subpar Seagate hard drive inside decides to up and die prematurely...

 

[fathergll]

When it comes using bootcamp, is pure SSD a big advantage? Can you install Windows on the SSD portion on a Fusion drive?

 

[matreya]

When it comes using bootcamp, is pure SSD a big advantage? Can you install Windows on the SSD portion on a Fusion drive?

The SSD component of a Fusion drive is only seen by the OS X side of things. Bootcamp will install entirely on the HDD.

 

[fathergll]

The SSD component of a Fusion drive is only seen by the OS X side of things. Bootcamp will install entirely on the HDD.

So bootcamp wise... Windows is basically on a 5400 RPM drive. Do you know how Windows works in a VM like parallels on a fusion drive? I'm trying to get a visual sense on how it all works.

 

[joema2]

So bootcamp wise... Windows is basically on a 5400 RPM drive. Do you know how Windows works in a VM like parallels on a fusion drive? I'm trying to get a visual sense on how it all works.

With Parallels, OS X is the VM host operating system. Windows runs within that VM, therefore all disk access is mapped through OS X. Using Fusion Drive, the SSD hit ratio for Windows apps on Parallels is just like a native OS X app -- typically fairly high. In fact it is so fast, it causes erroneous Windows disk benchmarks. HDTach shows 2,000 MB/sec and QuickBench shows 6,000 MB/sec (running largest possible test size with cache effects disabled).

On my 2013 iMac 27 with 3TB Fusion Drive, the Parallels Windows 8.1 VM boots to the Windows desktop in about 10 seconds.

 

[MindsEye]

I don't think they will see a benefit, 99% of the time. They will, however, notice the extra $100 and cables sticking out of their Mac.

Seriously, what benefit, other than a few specific cases? Sigh, no point in arguing this anymore. At least people have this discussion here, they can read it and make up their own mind. At least that is accomplished.

What was the point in creating this topic if you're unwilling to consider opposing view points? This whole topic whether you side on fusion or SSD is all about specific use cases.

You're continuing to grasp at straws to justify why you are correct and others are not.

So bootcamp wise... Windows is basically on a 5400 RPM drive. Do you know how Windows works in a VM like parallels on a fusion drive? I'm trying to get a visual sense on how it all works.

To touch further on what joema2 stated, parallels and fusion are virtualisation software installed on OS X allowing you to install a whole range of operating systems e.g Windows, Linux, OS X etc. think of them as like a video game emulator.

The big differences between bootcamp and parallels/fusion is with bootcamp, at start up, you boot into either OS X or Windows. Whereas with parallels and fusion, the guest operating is powered on from within the host operating system i.e. both OS X and Windows are running at the same time.

in bootcamp, Windows is usually installed on the internal drive and you allocate a portion of disk space to the Windows installation. With parallels/fusion, Windows can be installed on any disk ( internal or external) and you allocate resources such as disk space, Ram, vRAM and CPU cores ect. Other wise fusion or parallels will recommend settings (typically closer to min requirements).

 

[Chippy99]

That's almost laughable because when a spinner fails, there is a chance of recovering data. When an SSD fails, it's all over. So actually, data has a better chance of recovering from a failure thus making a Fusion drive more valuable than ever. Give it up buddy. SSD is not the end all-be all answer.

Catching up on this thread, I note you've come out with some pretty weird - and imho not very helpful - contributions.

1. Above, you seem to be completely confused about reliability and sensible backup strategies on the one hand, and data recovery on the other. When an SSD fails, it isn't "all over", it's time to restore from your backup.

Encrypted or not, it's very easy to recover data from ANY HDD.

2. AES128 encrypted data, let alone AES256, is today uncrackable so that's a pretty odd comment. And recovery of *unencrypted* data from a disk with failed drive electronics but healthy mechanics is perhaps straightforward - I would imagine it is. But if it's failed mechanically then OK you might get *some* data off damaged platters, but you aren't getting all of it and perhaps not the important stuff. To say it's easy to recover all data as you imply, is simply nonsense and not at all helpful.

 

[AppleFan360]

Catching up on this thread, I note you've come out with some pretty weird - and imho not very helpful - contributions.

1. Above, you seem to be completely confused about reliability and sensible backup strategies on the one hand, and data recovery on the other. When an SSD fails, it isn't "all over", it's time to restore from your backup.



2. AES128 encrypted data, let alone AES256, is today uncrackable so that's a pretty odd comment. And recovery of *unencrypted* data from a disk with failed drive electronics but healthy mechanics is perhaps straightforward - I would imagine it is. But if it's failed mechanically then OK you might get *some* data off damaged platters, but you aren't getting all of it and perhaps not the important stuff. To say it's easy to recover all data as you imply, is simply nonsense and not at all helpful.

Apparently you didn't read my other posts. Not everyone keeps backups. Simply telling someone to recover from their backup when they don't keep one is not very helpful. Also, it's not nonsense to think its easy to recover data from a failed HDD. I've done it. I find it funny how people these days take every precaution against hackers from recovering data then turn around and preach how difficult it is to get data off a failed hard drive. Make up your minds.