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.
Why the Hate for Fusion Drives?
- Thread starter whodatrr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I read this whole thread because I chose the 2TB Fusion over SSD and was having some post-purchase second thoughts. However, I realize they are really unfounded and the Fusion should work beautifully (for me).
I think we'd all love to see spinning drives done away with (I'd need to double-check but I imagine the upcoming iMac Pros will be SSD only, right?), but it is what it is. Storage is simply more important than lightning-fast access to everything on the HD. For all the posts that deride HDD's ("it should all be SSD in 201X"!!), well I think we all agree there. It's simply a matter of cost.
The pros for the Fusion outweigh the cons for me:
- I can keep all my media internally. I've kept 2 external drives for years (one media, one backup), which means I can just keep 1 external for Time Machine
- The 128GB SSD in the Fusion is nothing to sneeze at. I would agree that 32GB for the 1TB Fusion is pretty slim, but 128GB is enough to work with.
- 7200 rpm HDD is still pretty quick for general use. I am not a professional and I'm okay with an occasional hiccup if, for instance, Photos Library takes a moment longer to display.
- The money I would have spent trying to get a all-fast-all-the-time SSD was better spent imo on a faster i7 CPU. Hard drives can be replaced/exchanged; processors are sacred.
I think we'd all love to see spinning drives done away with (I'd need to double-check but I imagine the upcoming iMac Pros will be SSD only, right?), but it is what it is. Storage is simply more important than lightning-fast access to everything on the HD. For all the posts that deride HDD's ("it should all be SSD in 201X"!!), well I think we all agree there. It's simply a matter of cost.
The pros for the Fusion outweigh the cons for me:
- I can keep all my media internally. I've kept 2 external drives for years (one media, one backup), which means I can just keep 1 external for Time Machine
- The 128GB SSD in the Fusion is nothing to sneeze at. I would agree that 32GB for the 1TB Fusion is pretty slim, but 128GB is enough to work with.
- 7200 rpm HDD is still pretty quick for general use. I am not a professional and I'm okay with an occasional hiccup if, for instance, Photos Library takes a moment longer to display.
- The money I would have spent trying to get a all-fast-all-the-time SSD was better spent imo on a faster i7 CPU. Hard drives can be replaced/exchanged; processors are sacred.
Last edited:
I don't hate options, but rather, Apple's crappy start point.
500GB SSDs are cheap. No iMac should ship with anything less.
V
BTW, I have an old 2010 iMac Core i7 which has a 2 TB HDD in it. I never replaced the drive with SSD, but eventually attached a FireWire SSD to it, which actually improved responsiveness of the machine to an acceptable degree. I was never brave enough to take the iMac apart, since iFixit calls it difficult and people have reported breaking some cables, and with FireWire 800 it was actually decent enough as an interim solution.
Lately I was finally considering putting an SSD in it but eventually just put the money into a new iMac, so that I could get PCIe SSD, Retina screen, and of course USB 3.1 and Thunderbolt.
I put my OS install back onto the HD, and the performance was just horrible. It was simply painful to use. It was about 480 GB worth of stuff, with a bunch of software on it, including some stuff that launched at boot. Speaking of booting, it took forever, and this is a 7200 rpm desktop drive, not a 5400 rpm one. However, since I had transferred all my important stuff onto my 2017 iMac, I didn't need all that on my 2010 iMac anymore. I ended up wiping the entire drive and re-installing Sierra clean. No legacy software, and nothing that isn't necessary.
After installing Sophos Antivirus, iLife, iWork, MS Office 2011, Chrome, and Firefox, the total disk usage ended up around 18 GB.
Not surprisingly, the machine seems moderately responsive again. It pales in comparison to the SSD-endowed 2017, but it's still not too bad. Not great, but acceptable for entry level.
I guess that is how Apple justifies the 32 GB SSD in the 1 TB Fusion machines. It will be OK for clean installs with some extra applications and a few files. But then after that, the performance will suffer, especially for disk intensive stuff. The huge difference is that on my iMac 2017 with the EXACT SAME 480 GB mix of stuff (as I simply cloned the drive over from the 2010), the machine is still super responsive.
If I could spec a machine any way I wanted and I required say 1 TB of storage but on a budget, I think what I would do would be to spec a 256 GB SSD and 1 TB hard drive, as independent drives. A reasonable compromise might be a 128 GB SSD and 1 TB hard drive, but 32 GB + 1 TB is very limiting. I have some OS installs as backups elsewhere and I find with more moderate OS and application installs (not bare bones like my 18 GB install above), I am up to about the 28 GB range with no data at all. That's getting awfully close to 32 GB, and these are installs that don't include all the software I might want to run.
However, I would still prefer Apple would be more friendly to dual drives rather than shipping everything as Fusion, and as mentioned I really am not impressed with the 32 GB in the low end Fusion model. But luckily I don't have to compromise (much), as I went with the 1 TB SSD on my latest purchase. Unfortunately, on the low end iMacs, you can't actually get anything more than a 32 GB SSD / 1 TB HDD Fusion drive if you want a lot of cheap storage. There is no 128 / 2 TB Fusion drive option at all.
I disagree. I don't like HDD or Fusion either, but I think it's quite reasonable for Apple to spec Fusion for the lower end. Not sure how I feel about the HDD in the lowest end iMac though. It's not even Fusion.
BTW, I have an old 2010 iMac Core i7 which has a 2 TB HDD in it. I never replaced the drive with SSD, but eventually attached a FireWire SSD to it, which actually improved responsiveness of the machine to an acceptable degree. I was never brave enough to take the iMac apart, since iFixit calls it difficult and people have reported breaking some cables, and with FireWire 800 it was actually decent enough as an interim solution.
Lately I was finally considering putting an SSD in it but eventually just put the money into a new iMac, so that I could get PCIe SSD, Retina screen, and of course USB 3.1 and Thunderbolt.
I put my OS install back onto the HD, and the performance was just horrible. It was simply painful to use. It was about 480 GB worth of stuff, with a bunch of software on it, including some stuff that launched at boot. Speaking of booting, it took forever, and this is a 7200 rpm desktop drive, not a 5400 rpm one. However, since I had transferred all my important stuff onto my 2017 iMac, I didn't need all that on my 2010 iMac anymore. I ended up wiping the entire drive and re-installing Sierra clean. No legacy software, and nothing that isn't necessary.
After installing Sophos Antivirus, iLife, iWork, MS Office 2011, Chrome, and Firefox, the total disk usage ended up around 18 GB.
Not surprisingly, the machine seems moderately responsive again. It pales in comparison to the SSD-endowed 2017, but it's still not too bad. Not great, but acceptable for entry level.
I guess that is how Apple justifies the 32 GB SSD in the 1 TB Fusion machines. It will be OK for clean installs with some extra applications and a few files. But then after that, the performance will suffer, especially for disk intensive stuff. The huge difference is that on my iMac 2017 with the EXACT SAME 480 GB mix of stuff (as I simply cloned the drive over from the 2010), the machine is still super responsive.
If I could spec a machine any way I wanted and I required say 1 TB of storage but on a budget, I think what I would do would be to spec a 256 GB SSD and 1 TB hard drive, as independent drives. A reasonable compromise might be a 128 GB SSD and 1 TB hard drive, but 32 GB + 1 TB is very limiting. I have some OS installs as backups elsewhere and I find with more moderate OS and application installs (not bare bones like my 18 GB install above), I am up to about the 28 GB range with no data at all. That's getting awfully close to 32 GB, and these are installs that don't include all the software I might want to run.
However, I would still prefer Apple would be more friendly to dual drives rather than shipping everything as Fusion, and as mentioned I really am not impressed with the 32 GB in the low end Fusion model. But luckily I don't have to compromise (much), as I went with the 1 TB SSD on my latest purchase. Unfortunately, on the low end iMacs, you can't actually get anything more than a 32 GB SSD / 1 TB HDD Fusion drive if you want a lot of cheap storage. There is no 128 / 2 TB Fusion drive option at all.
Last edited:
Apple should simply offer BTO options on SSD size and HardDisk size. Let the buyer decide if, and what size of each they desire ... and then let the buyer choose to either build a Fusion drive, or leave them separate. Or, for advanced users, use a partitioned part of each as desired to build a Fusion drive.
That is indeed just terrible from our point of view, but I can see why Apple would cheap out on the HD for those who don't care at all about performance. Truly for people who really just don't know anything about computers (and I'm not trying to sound mean) - grandmas, kids perhaps. I'm just speculating but I'm sure they've done market research on who buys those lowest end iMacs and they likely don't care at all about the HD.
Sometimes you just gotta do it, and it feels really good. There's nothing like a fresh, clean install.
1TB Fusion Drive with 128GB SSD is fine.
When you pay up for 2TB, you should get a 256GB SSD to go with. 3TB is probably fine to stay at 256GB.
1TB Fusion Drive with 32GB SSD is embarrassing. That's the sort of corner-cutting and penny-pinching I would expect from a PC manufacturer. Apple should not be playing that game.
When you buy a Mac, you are investing in a platform that should always exceed expectations. Should let you grow as a user. Maybe now you only browse the web, but you have aspirations to make music (or edit video, or digitally draw, etc). Your Mac investment should grow with you to encompass most consumer level tasks. When the premium computer starts to feel slow, it has betrayed its value. You can get a PC that feels slow for a few hundred bucks.
When you pay up for 2TB, you should get a 256GB SSD to go with. 3TB is probably fine to stay at 256GB.
1TB Fusion Drive with 32GB SSD is embarrassing. That's the sort of corner-cutting and penny-pinching I would expect from a PC manufacturer. Apple should not be playing that game.
When you buy a Mac, you are investing in a platform that should always exceed expectations. Should let you grow as a user. Maybe now you only browse the web, but you have aspirations to make music (or edit video, or digitally draw, etc). Your Mac investment should grow with you to encompass most consumer level tasks. When the premium computer starts to feel slow, it has betrayed its value. You can get a PC that feels slow for a few hundred bucks.
I went for storage over speed, when upgrading from my 2012 rMBP to my 2017 3TB 5K iMac.
I'm guessing the Fusion Drive is faster than my 2012 rMBP SSD? I don't notice inferior performance, anyway.
I'm guessing the Fusion Drive is faster than my 2012 rMBP SSD? I don't notice inferior performance, anyway.
Fusion drives, as sold by Apple, are a compromise. But remember that Fusion Drives are just LVM (logical volume manager) constructions of an SSD with HDD. You can make your own (even on an iMac, you can use internal and external drives, assuming you want to and don't mind the cables).
For example, in one of my Mac mini servers, I took out one of the 1TB drives, and put in a 512GB SSD, and made a Fusion drive. So I have 512 GB + 1 TB = 1.5TB Fusion that is about 33% SSD. It rocks.
For example, in one of my Mac mini servers, I took out one of the 1TB drives, and put in a 512GB SSD, and made a Fusion drive. So I have 512 GB + 1 TB = 1.5TB Fusion that is about 33% SSD. It rocks.
Code:
$ diskutil cs list
CoreStorage logical volume groups (1 found)
|
+-- Logical Volume Group 57BE5A29-C614-4C1A-BFB2-2C4E182C40FF
=========================================================
Name: BillsFusion
Status: Online
Size: 1511111344128 B (1.5 TB)
Free Space: 8192 B (8.2 KB)
|
+-< Physical Volume 8C35704A-5800-4691-A547-8C3B8C95752B
| ----------------------------------------------------
| Index: 0
| Disk: disk0s2
| Status: Online
| Size: 511766216704 B (511.8 GB)
|
+-< Physical Volume 200C5CF7-E09D-4D1A-8687-1F5153B5E278
| ----------------------------------------------------
| Index: 1
| Disk: disk1s2
| Status: Online
| Size: 999345127424 B (999.3 GB)
|
+-> Logical Volume Family 2BE7B888-CC3C-44AB-A294-B0633A02E7B3
----------------------------------------------------------
Encryption Type: None
|
+-> Logical Volume 584FDFA3-6440-4474-ADD3-84FDE97B2DD0
---------------------------------------------------
Disk: disk2
Status: Online
Size (Total): 1503116918784 B (1.5 TB)
Revertible: No
LV Name: Macintosh HD
Volume Name: Macintosh HD
Content Hint: Apple_HFS
LVG Type: Fusion, Sparse
No, that's 8KB left on the VOLUME GROUP. The volume is consumed by the partition and filesystem.
Think of a whole bare HDD as a physical volume, and it can be 50% consumed by different partitions and 50% free space.
A logical volume group is a collection of chunks of other physical drives that are grouped together and look like a HDD to the layers above them.
This is the stack
Filesystem
Partition
Logical Volume
Physical Volume(s)
So if you create a full sized partition (or use all the space with multiple partitions), your Logical Volume and your Physical Volumes are 100% consumed (or nearly so)
If the solid state component of the fusion drive were larger, I may have gotten one. I like a boot/applications drive and a storage drive. My late 2010 iMac has 256 SSD and 2TB HD. The SSD is not full, but my usage of it exceeds the 128GB of the fusion drive. I'm not going back to loading programs from a regular hard drive, period, regardless of whether the operating system thinks I am using them frequently enough. So I ordered the 512 SSD...enough for programs and OS with some wiggle room... and will use an external.
True full ssd is just plain better but fusion drive with high sierra wont store the entire software, but only the used hdd sector...think of how many part of os x or any software you never use....do you need bootcamp assistant and parental control on ssd? Even within the network pannel there are components and therefore ton's of sector barely or never used....
My take on SSD vs Fusion (SSD + HDD):
Who should buy SSD only:
* users constantly writing/rewriting new data (RAW video capture) with transfer size > 4GB
* users running huge (100GB+) database servers or large VMs
* heavy BlackMagic disk speed benchmark users
Who should buy Fusion (2TB+)
* everybody else
Disclaimer: I am running FD (albeit with 512 GB SSD and 6TB HDD portion).
Who should buy SSD only:
* users constantly writing/rewriting new data (RAW video capture) with transfer size > 4GB
* users running huge (100GB+) database servers or large VMs
* heavy BlackMagic disk speed benchmark users
Who should buy Fusion (2TB+)
* everybody else
Disclaimer: I am running FD (albeit with 512 GB SSD and 6TB HDD portion).
Last edited:
And I want a pony.
[doublepost=1499725172][/doublepost]
There are hundreds of printer drivers, and few people have more than two printers. Apps are localised in 20 languages, and you only use one or two. iTunes has images for all music devices Apple ever built, in the right colour. Almost all can stay on your hard drive .
[doublepost=1499725308][/doublepost]
No, it's 8 KB free on the SSD part. 512 GB minus 8 KB are part of the Fusion Drive. 8 KB are not used. Wasted.
I have iMac 27 (late 2013) with Fusion Drive (128 GB SSD + 1 TB HD) since years. It's great, the best of both worlds. iMac starts up in seconds, but I have no fear to install huge packages (and I mean really huge software bundles like NI Komplete Ultimate with libraries). Very comfortable, don't need to mess with external drives etc.
For a company that has no problem pushing the envelope technology-wise by eliminating floppy drives, dvds and then forces TB3 ports only on it's new MBPs, it seems very curious that they stick with something as dated as a hybrid-mechanical drive.
O they could easily but you would pay for it, and people would cry for option, just like now it's crying for option
I think most Apply users are used to paying top dollar for quality. Just reading tonight how the iPhone 8 might start at $1200 makes me cringe!
No Mac ships with a hybrid drive. Fusion drive means SSD and HDD (both at the same time).
I notice that all people who are fighting against FD have never really used one and don't understand how it works ...
They say they have 200Gb of data and apps and that exceeds the SSD portion capacity.
They forget that the SSD only contains frequently used blocks, and on every Mac there are tons of unused files, including in apps, system files ...
I have the poor 1TB FD with 24Gb ssd.
It works really well for all my common task.
Ok, twice a day it can take 3 seconds more time to perform a task ... wow ...
I think, for me, it doesn't justify to pay 800€ more ...
For me, there are 2 main concerns with FD:
- virtualization is sluggish, due to the small SSD
- switching between users can be longer for users that rarely connect on the machine
Except these situations, it rune smoothly for all my activity (xcode, web development, photo and video editing ...)
They say they have 200Gb of data and apps and that exceeds the SSD portion capacity.
They forget that the SSD only contains frequently used blocks, and on every Mac there are tons of unused files, including in apps, system files ...
I have the poor 1TB FD with 24Gb ssd.
It works really well for all my common task.
Ok, twice a day it can take 3 seconds more time to perform a task ... wow ...
I think, for me, it doesn't justify to pay 800€ more ...
For me, there are 2 main concerns with FD:
- virtualization is sluggish, due to the small SSD
- switching between users can be longer for users that rarely connect on the machine
Except these situations, it rune smoothly for all my activity (xcode, web development, photo and video editing ...)