Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I often wonder how some people have so many problems with Windows when I don't. 

This is a thread about Apple's Fusion drive.  Please don't hijack it into a discussion of whether or not windows works for you, whether or not the OP should be using Windows, or whether or not Windows runs the world.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I'm glad that you noticed!   

No problem.  Although I don't think I'm the only one who has noticed that you keep trying to bring the discussion around to Windows.

Perhaps we should add a Windows perspective to the discussion.  As you seem to be the resident Windows expert, perhaps you could compare and contrast Apple's Fusion drive to the built-in Windows equivalent?

DPH Photos wrote:
You can do something similar with most Mac Books, take the disc drive out and replace it with an SSD. As other comments have stated you can work off that drive by loading your Photoshop, ect.. on that drive then store the finished file on a separate HDD. I built my own Mac Pro using PC parts with 2 drives but SSD was too expensive at the time.

A Fusion drive is a combination of software and hardware.  The software is built into Mac OS-X.    If you add a SSD drive to an existing Mac you can configure the new SSD and the existing HD as a Fusion drive.  Unfortunately, creating the Fusion drive will reinitialize your existing drive, so you need to make a backup (or two) before converting.

If you have an older MacBook, you can remove the optical drive and replace it with an SSD.   A 1TB laptop HD is about $70. A 1TB SSD is about $450.  A bracket to install one of these in the optical drive bay is under $10.   $34 gets you an external enclosure for the removed optical drive.

This gives you a 2 TB Fusion drive, with 1TB of SSD.   If your laptop currently has only a traditional HD, this will give you a big performance boost, and increase your storage capacity by at least 200%.

Michael Fryd wrote:

A Fusion drive is a combination of software and hardware.  The software is built into Mac OS-X.    If you add a SSD drive to an existing Mac you can configure the new SSD and the existing HD as a Fusion drive.  Unfortunately, creating the Fusion drive will reinitialize your existing drive, so you need to make a backup (or two) before converting.

If you have an older MacBook, you can remove the optical drive and replace it with an SSD.   A 1TB laptop HD is about $70. A 1TB SSD is about $450.  A bracket to install one of these in the optical drive bay is under $10.   $34 gets you an external enclosure for the removed optical drive.

This gives you a 2 TB Fusion drive, with 1TB of SSD.   If your laptop currently has only a traditional HD, this will give you a big performance boost, and increase your storage capacity by at least 200%.

Pretty much my opinion. You really shouldn't need to get an SSD that big but if you can afford it, it would be nice.

Light and Lens Studio wrote:

+1

SSD's have come down in price dramatically.  A year or so ago a 500 GB SSD was over $600; now, I'm seeing them for under $300

SSD's boot and run programs up to 10X faster than conventional HDD's with moving parts.

+2

All that deciding about which file goes where is done by the CPU. This data also has to be written and stored somewhere. Both of these will affect system performance to some degree.

When the decider decides to move a file from the SSD or vice-versa it takes disk time/bandwidth to do this. Because the 'fusion' drive consists of two physical disks, the data must be moved across the SATA bus.

The 'hybrid drive' is arguably more efficient in that it contains it's own CPU which does the deciding. It's cpu isn't interrupted each time you move your mouse or do something in photoshop so it can concentrate on bit optimization. Also, the cache(solid state storage) is integrated into the device. This means data can be moved in and out of the cache by it's onboard controller without going across the slower sata bus.

I think the 'fusion' drive is a very user friendly alternative to manually managing which files live where on your computer. I like to be in control when using a camera and a computer. But not everyone does. 'fusion' drive is the green square of file management. Just like green square, there are tradeoffs when handing control over to the machine.

*Tangent*
After his departure from Apple, Steve Wozniak (Inventor of the apple computer)went to work for a company called 'fusion-io' that made solid state storage and caching products. FusionIO products (except the ones that are standalone devices) interface directly with the PCIe bus eliminating the sata bottleneck.  Their 'atomic' product is about the fastest storage you can stuff into your computer. Many times faster than SSD. Also, many times more expensive. :-)

But, If you can afford a high end mac workstation some of their products may be in your price range. :-P
*End Tangent*

Noah Russell wrote:

+2

All that deciding about which file goes where is done by the CPU. This data also has to be written and stored somewhere. Both of these will affect system performance to some degree.

When the decider decides to move a file from the SSD or vice-versa it takes disk time/bandwidth to do this. Because the 'fusion' drive consists of two physical disks, the data must be moved across the SATA bus.

The 'hybrid drive' is arguably more efficient in that it contains it's own CPU which does the deciding. It's cpu isn't interrupted each time you move your mouse or do something in photoshop so it can concentrate on bit optimization. Also, the cache(solid state storage) is integrated into the device. This means data can be moved in and out of the cache by it's onboard controller without going across the slower sata bus.

I think the 'fusion' drive is a very user friendly alternative to manually managing which files live where on your computer. I like to be in control when using a camera and a computer. But not everyone does. 'fusion' drive is the green square of file management. Just like green square, there are tradeoffs when handing control over to the machine.

...
*End Tangent*

Yes, the Fusion drive relies on the main CPU and the OS to make the decisions and to handle moving the files around.  This has both advantages and disadvantages.

Most personal computers have spare CPU cycles.  There are lots of times when the CPU has nothing to do.  As I type this, my laptop CPU is running about 97% idle.   For the vast majority of people, the amount of CPU used in managing the Fusion drive is inconsequential.   I suspect the performance boost of 120GB of SSD, instead of 16GB Flash in a hybrid, more than makes up for the tiny loss of CPU.

Furthermore, the OS has more context than the Hybrid drive.  With more information, the OS can make more intelligent decisions as to what goes where.  The OS knows immediately when a file has been deleted and those blocks on the SSD are available for reuse.  The Hybrid needs to wait a while and notice that the blocks aren't being looked at anymore.

With a Fusion drive, you do end up using spare capacity on the SATA bus to move files around, but that happens in the background, when the bus would otherwise be idle.


While it's possible to just have two drives, and manually manage where files are, the Fusion system can do things that are not practical with a two volume system, manually managed configuration.

For instance, a Mac Application is actually a folder filled with many (perhaps thousands of) files.  Some files are language specific, and some are specific to certain functionality. One might never use the files with support for foreign languages.  If you don't use live trace in Photoshop (or don't have a Nikon camera) you may never need the Framework for live trace, (or the software that handles Nikon RAW files).  If you are manually managing where things are stored, it is difficult to place some of the App's files on the SSD, and some on the HD.  With a Fusion drive, the files in the App that are actually being used will be on the SSD, and, if you need the room, the remaining files will be on the HD.

The Fusion drive may not be a perfect solution, but it is a very good solution.  It is easy to use, and you would have to put a lot of effort into trying to manually do a better job.

All in all the Fusion drive provides a noticeable performance improvement.  Much more of an improvement than is typical from a hybrid drive.

Noah Russell wrote:
The 'hybrid drive' is arguably more efficient in that it contains it's own CPU which does the deciding.

My Applications folder is 40 gb in size. Are there any hybrid drives with that much space? Apple's implementation in the fusion drive puts all applications on the SSD first, and all else after that.

Michael Fryd wrote:

No problem.  Although I don't think I'm the only one who has noticed that you keep trying to bring the discussion around to Windows.

Perhaps we should add a Windows perspective to the discussion.  As you seem to be the resident Windows expert, perhaps you could compare and contrast Apple's Fusion drive to the built-in Windows equivalent?

Stop...you are part of the problem as well.  Stop talking about linux and unix and who can pee the furthest.  Stick to the topic.

Noah Russell wrote:
My question: Is paying $200 for 'fusion drive' or 'hybrid drive' the right choice for a photographer's editing computer?

In my opinion, no. If I were buying an iMac, I'd click the option for the 256gb SSD ($200) over the fusion drive($200).

Here are a few reasons why this choice makes sense for me:

1.) I'd be getting twice as much solid state storage for the money
2.)I'd get guaranteed performance for critical files, such as the OS, apps, light room catalog, premiere scratch etc.
3.)I'd be less likely to loose data due to a disk failure
4.)I work with files that exceed 4gb in size
5.) System performance won't degrade as the disk fills up
6.) I'm ok with moving files I plan to work on to fast storage.

I edit on a computer with 2 ssd drives. A 128gb which is plenty for the os, applications, and temp files (lightroom catalog etc.). A 256gb ssd holds files I'm working on. I prefer this solution to a single disk solution because I get double the bandwidth and IOPS (It's faster than one large ssd drive).

When I'm done, I move the files off my workstation onto a server for 'cold' storage.

Is the 'fusion drive' right for you? Maybe. Do your homework and decide for yourself.

You can read all about the pros, cons, and alternatives here or numerous other places on the web.

http://macperformanceguide.com/fusion.html

Cheers!
Noah

honestly, I'm not sure which I would choose.  But I am thinking of replacing a 170gb hard disk with a 256gb SSD some time.  But I'll probably wait until I'm ready for a major overall of my entire system.

Right now my system drive is a 128gb SSD which is plenty as a working space...but with me taking more and more photos lately and my plan to get a Nikon D810 next year...my 60gbs available are filling up fast.