Why the Hate for Fusion Drives?

[PJivan]

Fusion is the worst of all worlds.
A small SSDs and small HDDs if it was 10TB 2TB SSD and 8TB HDD i could see peoples logic, but on 1/2/3TB?

Take the SDD and get an external thunderbolt drive when you need it for capacity things..

Seriously again?
People have already provided you with their reasons, if your opinion are different fair enough...but if you can't understand their reasons that is your problem to sort it out....why on earth an average home users need 10tb of data, why on earth an average user want to spend time organising manually the file management on their mac, why on earth if someone mention budget issue you came up with 2TB SSD and 8TB hdd....so why not 10TB of SSD then? why not 50? isn't 50 better than 10? it's not even a matter of logic, but of basic understanding of human language and context.

Fusion is a 125GB SSD and a 2TB HDD and they work better with Fusion drive management than what you could possibly achieve manually since you don't get to choose which portion of OS needs to run on the HDD and neither you have the ability to built in a sub 4gb drive cache. YES you find out that by spending more you can get more performance, we are amazed by your discover.

 

[AFEPPL]

You've already provided your opinion "too" and it's NO better than ANYONES else regardless of your personal view.

You can't buy 10TB SSDs - "keep up"!!! and yes i was exaggerating the sizes for effect.
Why does the average user need 2.1TB? What is an average user?
You don't need to "organise" anything.. mount -t hfs /dev/disk1s4 ~/mountpoint/ its just a folder.. hit save!

If you read what i put.. i said Fusion "could" make sense "if" it was provided with large drives. "128GB" is repeatably mentioned as "not enough" 2GB SATA is "not enough" for a central repository, you'll still end up with external drives at some point. £83 is the retail cost of the 2TB 2.5 drive, £85 is the retail cost for the 128GB SSD, retail not the "additional" cost. For the money apple want the "fusion drive" should be shipped with MUCH larger capacities "If you cant understand that sort it out".

For the money "I" would take the 512GB SSD and go for an external drive from the get go. A 512GB SSD which is the same price as a 3TB fusion drive would provide a big enough project area and run a NAS device. If i was on a budget 256GB SSD and a external drive 4TB £125 which is only about £30 more than a 2TB fusion option..!

options exist for a reason..

 

[cynics]

You've already provided your opinion "too" and it's NO better than ANYONES else regardless of your personal view.

You can't buy 10TB SSDs - "keep up"!!! and yes i was exaggerating the sizes for effect.
Why does the average user need 2.1TB? What is an average user?
You don't need to "organise" anything.. mount -t hfs /dev/disk1s4 ~/mountpoint/ its just a folder.. hit save!

If you read what i put.. i said Fusion "could" make sense "if" it was provided with large drives. "128GB" is repeatably mentioned as "not enough" 2GB SATA is "not enough" for a central repository, you'll still end up with external drives at some point. £83 is the retail cost of the 2TB 2.5 drive, £85 is the retail cost for the 128GB SSD, retail not the "additional" cost. For the money apple want the "fusion drive" should be shipped with MUCH larger capacities "If you cant understand that sort it out".

For the money "I" would take the 512GB SSD and go for an external drive from the get go. A 512GB SSD which is the same price as a 3TB fusion drive would provide a big enough project area and run a NAS device. If i was on a budget 256GB SSD and a external drive 4TB £125 which is only about £30 more than a 2TB fusion option..!

options exist for a reason..

There is always the people that just want to keep it simple. I use a NAS for external storage and while I find it easy enough to use its certainly not for many users. Using an external USB solution is much simpler but still not for everyone.

Plus the Fusion drive can utilize the SSD portion much better than we can since its operating on a block level. So I would venture a guess and say we would need to start any retail cost comparisons with a 256gb PCIe SSD + HDD.

Not faulting your logic btw because its sound. A larger HDD does make more sense but the almighty dollar always comes into to muck it up for all of us.

 

[PJivan]

You've already provided your opinion "too" and it's NO better than ANYONES else regardless of your personal view.

You can't buy 10TB SSDs - "keep up"!!! and yes i was exaggerating the sizes for effect.
Why does the average user need 2.1TB? What is an average user?
You don't need to "organise" anything.. mount -t hfs /dev/disk1s4 ~/mountpoint/ its just a folder.. hit save!

If you read what i put.. i said Fusion "could" make sense "if" it was provided with large drives. "128GB" is repeatably mentioned as "not enough" 2GB SATA is "not enough" for a central repository, you'll still end up with external drives at some point. £83 is the retail cost of the 2TB 2.5 drive, £85 is the retail cost for the 128GB SSD, retail not the "additional" cost. For the money apple want the "fusion drive" should be shipped with MUCH larger capacities "If you cant understand that sort it out".

For the money "I" would take the 512GB SSD and go for an external drive from the get go. A 512GB SSD which is the same price as a 3TB fusion drive would provide a big enough project area and run a NAS device. If i was on a budget 256GB SSD and a external drive 4TB £125 which is only about £30 more than a 2TB fusion option..!

options exist for a reason..

OMG is getting boring!

• Mount a disk is not the problem do I have to explain the difference between managing files between two hard drives and a system that does that automatically as efficient as doing it by sector? Forget efficiency do you even think that some people prefer to maybe wait few second more instead of sorting out were put their stuff? plus copying a 3gb file on your external HHD will still take time since you have no cache system that does that for you.
• repeatably mentioned as "not enough" by you, it is plenty for some but decided to ignore/refuse this fact, we are all aware of the size of the SSD and all adults can decide for themselves, this is just you not accepting other people valuation on their needs, it's funny that you think 2TB is not enough for users, vast majority of users live with way less, and I mean VAST, this tells much of your perception of average user.
  
• What could Apple do for the money is an argument I won't even comment...just childish.
• 512SSD cost 240 euro more than a 2TB fusion drive and 120 euro more then a 3TB fusion drive, if we are talking about value and automation is not a value I can buy a 1tb SSD on top of a fusion drive with 300 euros(only 60 euro more than your 512SSD) and have a 1.15TB SSD + 2TB HDD, you are instead suggesting that 384GB more SSD minus the 2tb HDD (85 pounds like you said) worth 240 euros...I'm struggling with your value logic here.
• 256GB is not available on top end iMac.

Option exist for a reason, I would love 256GB/3TB fusion drive but is not here. I would love 2TB SSD at the same price of the FD 2TB but is not going to happen. So everyone can account the data/performance/cost and make their educated choice. You are like the people saying an iMac is **** because it doesn't have a 1080 Ti on it, and anything below a colorfull gaming rig is trash, open-minded views I guess.

Going back to the topic, Why the hate on Fusion Drive the answer appear to be because is not enough for someone...i think it's unfair, the technology works great, so much better than Intel SRT and it should see big improvement with new software update (10.13), nice thing about software technology is that they can be improved.

Point should be FD is great and we want more size options to satisfy more users, no point to hate a clever technology.

 

[cynics]

Going back to the topic, Why the hate on Fusion Drive the answer appear to be because is not enough for someone...i think it's unfair, the technology works great, so much better than Intel SRT and it should see big improvement with new software update (10.13), nice thing about software technology is that they can be improved.

Because so many people need to justify their purchases is the answer. This is always the case and I think we've all been guilty of it at some point in our lives.

I'm still using an HDD in my iMac. Its more a test of patience than anything else. None of the software I use is bound by the HDD. I do wish I had an SSD (and I do plan on upgrading my HDD one day) but someone trying to sell me on the idea due to 5 second boot times literally makes me roll my eyes.

I know there are real world cases that you need faster i/o disk performance but few are literally bound by it. Even in the limited 4k video editing I do its not much of an issue.

I think the Fusion Drive is a great idea. Its light years ahead of the competition that do the same thing except use a 32gb sata portion and 5400rpm HDD portion (why do some many overlook how much better Apples option is btw?). And now its a standard vs just an HDD (27"), which IMO is awesome.

For those that know better (or think so anyway) Apple has options for them too. I really don't think anyone is "wrong" with their opinion on the FD but I certainly don't think it deserves any hate either (again looking at the competition).

 

[jlseattle]

I'll put my two cents in. If you purchase an fusion drive you are sacrificing your system performance and really wasting money. Get the ssd and if you need more space get an external ssd. But do not waste your money on any spinning drive regardless of price. It's a terrible thing that they still manufacture spinning drives. That's like putting a spinning drive in your phone. It's stupid. That one purchase decision (ssd vs fusion) is the #1 choice you can make in your hardware choices when you upgrade over CPU, RAM OR video card. The spinning drive is wasting an i7 chip for sure and most if not all i5 chips. It probably pairs well with an a5 chip on an iPad. Please don't waste your money on a spinning disk. It encourages them to keep making them.
[doublepost=1501115081][/doublepost]Drops mic

 

[cynics]

I'll put my two cents in. If you purchase an fusion drive you are sacrificing your system performance and really wasting money. Get the ssd and if you need more space get an external ssd. But do not waste your money on any spinning drive regardless of price. It's a terrible thing that they still manufacture spinning drives. That's like putting a spinning drive in your phone. It's stupid. That one purchase decision (ssd vs fusion) is the #1 choice you can make in your hardware choices when you upgrade over CPU, RAM OR video card. The spinning drive is wasting an i7 chip for sure and most if not all i5 chips. It probably pairs well with an a5 chip on an iPad. Please don't waste your money on a spinning disk. It encourages them to keep making them.
[doublepost=1501115081][/doublepost]Drops mic

CPU performance and I/O disk performance can't and shouldn't be compared so easily.

Faster I/O disk performance has always benefited all computers. That is the reason Commodore programs could load MUCH faster off a cartridge vs tape/floppy.

The opposite applies too. If you are doing a very heavy CPU intensive task its very unlikely you are using much of the I/O performance even from a HDD.

Example, to maximize CPU usage I transcoded a random m4v at the easiest and fastest settings I could. Frames per second hovered around 900-1000. Disk write was 12MBps. So I would need to increase performance around 100x before the HDD bottlenecked CPU performance. And those were with unrealistic settings, for the most part it was just copying the file through the CPU.

If you mean the CPU sitting around waiting for the HDD to load something then that applies to SSD's too regardless of CPU.

Point I'm getting at, its not a waste of money to buy an i7 if you have an HDD or FD. If you are truly doing something to leverage the i7 the output is probably heading to an external HDD/NAS/whatever anyway.

I'll agree with your that disk performance is by far the most noticeable real world difference you can make and would even recommend investing into an SSD before considering CPU (unless you have a specific workload that dictates otherwise).

HDD's will keep being made for a very long time. Lets not completely discount them quite yet. Many systems that require constant write operations require them because that will destroy and SSD. With things like surveillance/security systems they are an absolute requirement. Also its still the preferred option in NAS due to size limitations of SSDs.

 

[PJivan]

I'll put my two cents in. If you purchase an fusion drive you are sacrificing your system performance and really wasting money. Get the ssd and if you need more space get an external ssd. But do not waste your money on any spinning drive regardless of price. It's a terrible thing that they still manufacture spinning drives. That's like putting a spinning drive in your phone. It's stupid. That one purchase decision (ssd vs fusion) is the #1 choice you can make in your hardware choices when you upgrade over CPU, RAM OR video card. The spinning drive is wasting an i7 chip for sure and most if not all i5 chips. It probably pairs well with an a5 chip on an iPad. Please don't waste your money on a spinning disk. It encourages them to keep making them.
[doublepost=1501115081][/doublepost]Drops mic

Few and confused ideas...If you want to fight mechanical drive stop using any cloud service and data center then, they are the bigger customers.

 

[ZipZap]

CPU performance and I/O disk performance can't and shouldn't be compared so easily.

Faster I/O disk performance has always benefited all computers. That is the reason Commodore programs could load MUCH faster off a cartridge vs tape/floppy.

The opposite applies too. If you are doing a very heavy CPU intensive task its very unlikely you are using much of the I/O performance even from a HDD.

Example, to maximize CPU usage I transcoded a random m4v at the easiest and fastest settings I could. Frames per second hovered around 900-1000. Disk write was 12MBps. So I would need to increase performance around 100x before the HDD bottlenecked CPU performance. And those were with unrealistic settings, for the most part it was just copying the file through the CPU.

If you mean the CPU sitting around waiting for the HDD to load something then that applies to SSD's too regardless of CPU.

Point I'm getting at, its not a waste of money to buy an i7 if you have an HDD or FD. If you are truly doing something to leverage the i7 the output is probably heading to an external HDD/NAS/whatever anyway.

I'll agree with your that disk performance is by far the most noticeable real world difference you can make and would even recommend investing into an SSD before considering CPU (unless you have a specific workload that dictates otherwise).

HDD's will keep being made for a very long time. Lets not completely discount them quite yet. Many systems that require constant write operations require them because that will destroy and SSD. With things like surveillance/security systems they are an absolute requirement. Also its still the preferred option in NAS due to size limitations of SSDs.

HDD is never a good idea when you can't self-service issues. Its a better approach to have SDD inside and if you must have HDD had it external. I have a iMac with Fusion. I've had a MacBook Pro with SSD. SSD wins and its noticeable.

I have had an issue with my Fusion as well when the 2 drives disconnected. Its a pain to pack up the iMac and haul it to an Apple Store to get if fixed, which they did in 30 min.

The discussion here continues only because of the ridiculous pricing Apple has for SSD. If SSD, as well as their memory, was more affordable...everyone would get SSD and the question of which is better would immediately end.

 

[Chancha]

I feel the preference away from Fusion has more to do with Apple's (lowly) offering.

I wonder if Apple provided BTO options for us to choose how big the SSD and HDD are in a Fusion setup, how much of the conversations here would change. My previous two Mac purchase both were done with a choice of internal 1TB SSD, but not necessarily because the Fusion idea itself sucked, but more with Apple's somewhat low capacity option. A few years ago on my Mac Mini 2012, from the get go I bought the server version (with 2 SATA ports/cables), with a 256GB SSD and a 1TB HDD (much larger SSD portion than the Apple Fusion offering), and CoreStorage them myself. It had been a wonderful performer as far as Mac Mini internal drive is concerned.

In the future Modular Mac Pro, or a Hackintosh PC now, you can config your own combo of different sizes of PCIe SSD and SATA HDDs, perhaps even arrays of them. The kind of performance and ease of having a single logical volume can be really great when done right. Even on my recent iMac 2017 purchase with 1TB SSD, after my 3 year AppleCare expires, the first thing I will do is to eBay the SATA cable, and stuff a 12TB 3.5" HDD inside and Fusion them up.

 

[PJivan]

HDD is never a good idea when you can't self-service issues. Its a better approach to have SDD inside and if you must have HDD had it external. I have a iMac with Fusion. I've had a MacBook Pro with SSD. SSD wins and its noticeable.

I have had an issue with my Fusion as well when the 2 drives disconnected. Its a pain to pack up the iMac and haul it to an Apple Store to get if fixed, which they did in 30 min.

The discussion here continues only because of the ridiculous pricing Apple has for SSD. If SSD, as well as their memory, was more affordable...everyone would get SSD and the question of which is better would immediately end.

Rebuilt a fusion drive it's super easy as is not an hardware problem but a software one.... you could have fixed it easily by rebuilding it. Just saying

 

[AFEPPL]

OMG is getting boring!

• Mount a disk is not the problem do I have to explain the difference between managing files between two hard drives and a system that does that automatically as efficient as doing it by sector? Forget efficiency do you even think that some people prefer to maybe wait few second more instead of sorting out were put their stuff? plus copying a 3gb file on your external HHD will still take time since you have no cache system that does that for you.
• repeatably mentioned as "not enough" by you, it is plenty for some but decided to ignore/refuse this fact, we are all aware of the size of the SSD and all adults can decide for themselves, this is just you not accepting other people valuation on their needs, it's funny that you think 2TB is not enough for users, vast majority of users live with way less, and I mean VAST, this tells much of your perception of average user.
  
• What could Apple do for the money is an argument I won't even comment...just childish.
• 512SSD cost 240 euro more than a 2TB fusion drive and 120 euro more then a 3TB fusion drive, if we are talking about value and automation is not a value I can buy a 1tb SSD on top of a fusion drive with 300 euros(only 60 euro more than your 512SSD) and have a 1.15TB SSD + 2TB HDD, you are instead suggesting that 384GB more SSD minus the 2tb HDD (85 pounds like you said) worth 240 euros...I'm struggling with your value logic here.
• 256GB is not available on top end iMac.

Option exist for a reason, I would love 256GB/3TB fusion drive but is not here. I would love 2TB SSD at the same price of the FD 2TB but is not going to happen. So everyone can account the data/performance/cost and make their educated choice. You are like the people saying an iMac is **** because it doesn't have a 1080 Ti on it, and anything below a colorfull gaming rig is trash, open-minded views I guess.

Going back to the topic, Why the hate on Fusion Drive the answer appear to be because is not enough for someone...i think it's unfair, the technology works great, so much better than Intel SRT and it should see big improvement with new software update (10.13), nice thing about software technology is that they can be improved.

Point should be FD is great and we want more size options to satisfy more users, no point to hate a clever technology.

You're not kidding it's GOT boring..!

I've work for the largest companies in the world including fruit ones, so i think i know how technologies work in terms of file management. You don't need to manage anything, you get a BIGGER SSD for the day to day project files and archive everything else (or use cloud services) it's just a simple file operation in either direction! I must email Tim and mention how the imac doesn't allow me to store the vast amount of data that's held in the 4 DCs. I need that data all local so i don't need to manage files. File operations are a waste of my time. (note this is sarcasm).

Copying that 3GB file "still takes time" by all accounts, and is 100% whats going to happen with the cache too unless that 3GB file is used ALL the time. So you are still waiting! This is why caches suck, it doesn't know what's next. Caching work on a usage patterns algorithm. So if you use it all the time, just keep it on the bigger and faster 256GB SSD to start with. Correct 256GB SSD is not on the top 27" imac, but neither is 1TB fusion! Go look at the middle iMac for the logic. If we are talking the top end imac 512GB SSD all the way for very little more than 2TB Fusion drive and remember the "vast majority of users live with way less, and I mean VAST" so 512GB should be perfect by default.

Comparisons to SRT is pointless, it's not available on iMac. Plus SRT was replaced by optane anyways which uses memory class 3DXP NAND and Slated to be coming to rMBPs soon (maybe).
I don't hate clever technology, larger fusion drives are not the ask or answer at all - that's a workaround. SSDs for the same price and capacity are the real ask. Fusion does nothing better than SSD, its just cheaper "currently".

Electromechanical drives are slow, consume lots of power and are noisy. Fusion is a work around, thats the hate.
For the record, i don't agree with the word hate, but thats the topic keyword. I would say reluctance or negativity. Hate is something else.

 

[PJivan]

You're not kidding it's GOT boring..!

I've work for the largest companies in the world including fruit ones, so i think i know how technologies work in terms of file management. You don't need to manage anything, you get a BIGGER SSD for the day to day project files and archive everything else (or use cloud services) it's just a simple file operation in either direction! I must email Tim and mention how the imac doesn't allow me to store the vast amount of data that's held in the 4 DCs. I need that data all local so i don't need to manage files. File operations are a waste of my time. (note this is sarcasm).

Copying that 3GB file "still takes time" by all accounts, and is 100% whats going to happen with the cache too unless that 3GB file is used ALL the time. So you are still waiting! This is why caches suck, it doesn't know what's next. Caching work on a usage patterns algorithm. So if you use it all the time, just keep it on the bigger and faster 256GB SSD to start with. Correct 256GB SSD is not on the top 27" imac, but neither is 1TB fusion! Go look at the middle iMac for the logic. If we are talking the top end imac 512GB SSD all the way for very little more than 2TB Fusion drive and remember the "vast majority of users live with way less, and I mean VAST" so 512GB should be perfect by default.

Comparisons to SRT is pointless, it's not available on iMac. Plus SRT was replaced by optane anyways which uses memory class 3DXP NAND and Slated to be coming to rMBPs soon (maybe).
I don't hate clever technology, larger fusion drives are not the ask or answer at all - that's a workaround. SSDs for the same price and capacity are the real ask. Fusion does nothing better than SSD, its just cheaper "currently".

Electromechanical drives are slow, consume lots of power and are noisy. Fusion is a work around, thats the hate.
For the record, i don't agree with the word hate, but thats the topic keyword. I would say reluctance or negativity. Hate is something else.

I've and I currently work for the biggest IT company out there, I've also worked long time in XSAN environment, but it's irrelevant.

Please check how FD works, if you copy a 3gb file regardless of the usage, even at the first time, FD will copy in a reserved 4gb portion and than copy it on the background on HDD if it feels necessary depending on file type.
Also you are confusing SRT with Fusion drive, the time a file is used it's not necessary what determine were the file or portion of it should reside.
Fusion drive does better than a 125GB SSD and 2TB HDD managed manually in terms of efficiency e cost effectiveness.

For the rest part since you are keep insisting that bigger SSD are better like if money is worth nothing I crown you king of the obvious and I'm out of this thread.

 

[glazball]

What about this scenario? In a few years, after PCIe SSD's come down in price, how easy (or difficult) would it be to exchange the 128GB SSD part of the Fusion Drive with something larger?

I'm quite happy with my Fusion Drive so far, but I could imagine that down the line it would be nice to have a 512GB or 1TB SSD in there instead of the stock 128GB.

 

[PJivan]

What about this scenario? In a few years, after PCIe SSD's come down in price, how easy (or difficult) would it be to exchange the 128GB SSD part of the Fusion Drive with something larger?

I'm quite happy with my Fusion Drive so far, but I could imagine that down the line it would be nice to have a 512GB or 1TB SSD in there instead of the stock 128GB.

You can build a FD out of anything you like...

 

[AFEPPL]

I've and I currently work for the biggest IT company out there, I've also worked long time in XSAN environment, but it's irrelevant.

Please check how FD works, if you copy a 3gb file regardless of the usage, even at the first time, FD will copy in a reserved 4gb portion and than copy it on the background on HDD if it feels necessary depending on file type.
Also you are confusing SRT with Fusion drive, the time a file is used it's not necessary what determine were the file or portion of it should reside.
Fusion drive does better than a 125GB SSD and 2TB HDD managed manually in terms of efficiency e cost effectiveness.

For the rest part since you are keep insisting that bigger SSD are better like if money is worth nothing I crown you king of the obvious and I'm out of this thread.

I know 100% how it works, i posted it about 6 pages back...
The "copy" operation I'm taking about is INTO the cache when READING a file. If you read a 3GB and it's not sat in the cached area, it has to be moved into the cache "first" before it can the be served from cache on subsequent reads and it will move "in" at HDD speeds. You are talking about "saves" to a FD drive which do hit cache first and are then offloaded - but the assumption is it can or has already detached everything else first and that space is thus free.. It takes the same time to write to the platters regardless if that operation is handled in the background or not. Once the write cache is full - its full!

SRT doesnt work like that at all, nor will optane.

FD was covered in detail previously about the mass move of large files and what the impact of that is - which may or may not be a problem to some. I'll meet you in the cafe' then!!!!

What about this scenario? In a few years, after PCIe SSD's come down in price, how easy (or difficult) would it be to exchange the 128GB SSD part of the Fusion Drive with something larger?

I'm quite happy with my Fusion Drive so far, but I could imagine that down the line it would be nice to have a 512GB or 1TB SSD in there instead of the stock 128GB.

It's not fixed, you can interchange and rebuild any part of it. its a cache.
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT207584

 

[glazball]

Thanks for the responses. I know it can be done - I suppose my question was how difficult a task it would be for the average user (not referring to physically getting into the iMac, but configuring and setting up a Fusion Drive with a newly installed SSD). And to follow that thought through, would there be any drawbacks to using an aftermarket SSD?

I guess from my non-expert p.o.v., it seems there no real reason to argue about "platter drives should be killed off" and "don't get the Fusion" and "HDD is a waste of money/CPU, drops mic" when it could be upgraded later after prices finally come down.

 

[PJivan]

Thanks for the responses. I know it can be done - I suppose my question was how difficult a task it would be for the average user (not referring to physically getting into the iMac, but configuring and setting up a Fusion Drive with a newly installed SSD). And to follow that thought through, would there be any drawbacks to using an aftermarket SSD?

I guess from my non-expert p.o.v., it seems there no real reason to argue about "platter drives should be killed off" and "don't get the Fusion" and "HDD is a waste of money/CPU, drops mic" when it could be upgraded later after prices finally come down.

You can even plug a 1-2tb sata SSD and make a fusion out of the internal pci-e and the external SSD and use the HDD internal for time machine backup...not saying I'm suggesting it but it's very easy to do, you can view the command to buil it here http://www.macworld.com/article/2014011/storage-drives/how-to-make-your-own-fusion-drive.html

 

[AFEPPL]

Thanks for the responses. I know it can be done - I suppose my question was how difficult a task it would be for the average user (not referring to physically getting into the iMac, but configuring and setting up a Fusion Drive with a newly installed SSD). And to follow that thought through, would there be any drawbacks to using an aftermarket SSD?

I guess from my non-expert p.o.v., it seems there no real reason to argue about "platter drives should be killed off" and "don't get the Fusion" and "HDD is a waste of money/CPU, drops mic" when it could be upgraded later after prices finally come down.

Average user - hard, the iMac doesn't come to bits easy and its a daunting task the first time you do it.
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Intel+27-Inch+Retina+5K+Display+Teardown/30260

 

[Weaselboy]

I suppose my question was how difficult a task it would be for the average user (not referring to physically getting into the iMac, but configuring and setting up a Fusion Drive with a newly installed SSD).

Aside from the physical install you mentioned, setting up the Fusion drive is very simple and just takes a few minutes in Terminal. Here is an older post of mine that walks you through it.

 

[glazball]

Very cool, thanks for the links each of you! Very helpful. I've seen and read about getting into an iMac and the idea doesn't thrill me one bit but otoh, it doesn't seem to be the end of the world either. Since there are adhesive strips/kits that make putting it back together easier, it could be worth looking into if/when I ever decide to upgrade the SSD.

@PJivan - I really like that idea of using the internal HDD as my Time Machine backup!

 

[cube]

Non-self contained drives are bad.

 

[richman555]

This past weekend, I bought a 2017 iMac i7 with 2TB fusion drive and I feel sooo naughty!

 

[Taz Mangus]

This past weekend, I bought a 2017 iMac i7 with 2GB fusion drive and I feel sooo naughty!

You meant 2TB SSD?

 

[jlseattle]

So I'm going to revive this thread to give my review of the SSD vs. Fusion drive debate. Having now had several 2017 iMacs with . There is a noticeable difference. It is at the operating system level. The operating system is consistently choppy and slowish to respond. On the SSD it is completely seamless. You click on something it loads immediately.

SO I will qualify that I had two 2017 iMacs (one i7 and one i5) that had the 1tb fusion drive. The current mac I have is an 27" 3.8 i5 with an 512ssd. I know that the 1tb fusion drives have only 28gb of ssd. So that would explain why it's so choppy in performance. I think you would see some performance improvement on 2 or 3tb fusion drives (with 128 ssd).

But my analysis is still that the priority on your mac purchase is:

21" - SSD Drive, RAM, Processor
27" - SSD Drive, Processor

*27" iMacs can have after market ram added later (so not a priority), 21" iMacs don't have upgradeable ram.

Therefore don't order the 21" i7 processor with the 1tb fusion drive and 8gb of ram (yea, that was the first computer I ordered)....