This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:55:08 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I'm guessing that no one here finds
themselves twiddling thumbs while they wait for
image files to be written to disk. The big use of time
is in doing image manipulation on very large images
with complex calculations and/or use of swap.

Even then, with the option increasingly offered by image processing
software, of using the processors on the graphics card, the ordinary
photographic enthusiast rarely has to wait for as long as a second for
most image tasks. The conspicuous exception is saving a multilayered
fle to disc.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-11-20 07:37:48 +0000, David Taylor said:

On 19/11/2014 23:30, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2014-11-19 15:30:17 +0000, nospam said:
[]
and way more reliable, even if you're hammering it.

This remains to be seen, over the long term. Though it seems logical
because of the lack of moving parts.
[]

Well, no. The reliability depends on the use. Unlike HDDs, SSDs have
a limited number of write cycles, and if you are using them in
applications where there is a high write throughput they /will/ fail.
Look at the manufacturer's lifetime throughput specification when
comparing. In mostly read-only applications they're usually fine.
Problems can include little or no early warning of failure.

Most of the modern SSDs can withstand millions of writes per block (or
whatever the logical chunk is that is written) which is probably
decades of use for your average person. SSDs also have extra space
hidden away in case a write fails, so they can simply move the write to
the backup area.

On 2014-11-20 05:57:36 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:51:21 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
wrote:

I like to actually know what's going on before I say I know what's going on.

I don't know if I want to take the word of someone who is trained in
the inspection of the entrails of sacrificed animals when it comes to
computer devices.

I don't know if I would want to take the word of a barrel maker when it
comes to tech stuff!

On 2014-11-20 06:10:22 +0000, nospam said:

yet you keep saying what it isn't, without knowing what's going on.

You keep pretending you know what's going on when you have nothing but
Apple's marketing materials, and a Wikipedia page sourced from those
marketing materials, to go on.

I'm in the OS X developer program and I looked through all my
documentation for Fusion and there is literally nothing about it.
Nothing.

But please, go on pretending you know what's going on.

On 2014-11-20 17:55:27 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

as the user uses the computer, commonly used files are moved to the ssd
and infrequently used files are moved to the hard drive, without the
user needing to do anything other than use the computer normally.

Would you care to explain how Apple's Fusion Drive differs from the SSD
cache technology that Intel introduced with SandyBridge Z86 chipset?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/i...ching-review/2


Now called Intel "Smart Response Technology" - dreadful name...

as has been explained multiple times already, fusion is not a cache.

You have no idea what it is because you don't have any actual
documentation on how it works.

it's one logical volume that's actually tiered storage where files are
intelligently moved between ssd and the hard drive.

So the marketing material says. Which indicates that it's simply a
cache using the SSD instead of RAM to hold the HD's data. But this is
only a marketing description - there's no actual technical
documentation of how it works exactly.

In article , Oregonian Haruspex
wrote:

as the user uses the computer, commonly used files are moved to the ssd
and infrequently used files are moved to the hard drive, without the
user needing to do anything other than use the computer normally.

Would you care to explain how Apple's Fusion Drive differs from the SSD
cache technology that Intel introduced with SandyBridge Z86 chipset?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/i...sponse-technol
ogy-ssd-caching-review/2

Now called Intel "Smart Response Technology" - dreadful name...

as has been explained multiple times already, fusion is not a cache.

You have no idea what it is because you don't have any actual
documentation on how it works.

you're asking for the ingredients to the secret sauce and you know
damned well you're not going to get it.

those without a chip on their shoulder can tell what it's doing.

it's one logical volume that's actually tiered storage where files are
intelligently moved between ssd and the hard drive.

So the marketing material says. Which indicates that it's simply a
cache using the SSD instead of RAM to hold the HD's data. But this is
only a marketing description - there's no actual technical
documentation of how it works exactly.

you can't even grasp the marketing materials. no wonder you're confused.

In article , Rikishi42
wrote:

because i've read quite a bit about it.

here's apple's tech note:

Sorry, Apple notes don't count.
They're from Apple, remember?

of course it counts. apple is who designed it. why would they lie about
it?

You kinda answered that question yourself, there.

there is no evidence that apple would lie about something, especially
in a tech note.

It's a very big company. You don't need evidence, the mere fact they got
there is enough. At one point they will have used marketing crap claims.

do you have any evidence it's not what they say it is?

I don't need any. What people need is prove - real independant prove - that
their claims have any value at all. Otherwise we can only guess.

of course you need evidence. you can't simply claim they're lying and
expect to be believed.

without proof, you're full of ****.

and it's been independently evaluated, not that it matters. you
wouldn't believe any of it anyway.

In article , Oregonian Haruspex
wrote:

yet you keep saying what it isn't, without knowing what's going on.

You keep pretending you know what's going on when you have nothing but
Apple's marketing materials, and a Wikipedia page sourced from those
marketing materials, to go on.

I'm in the OS X developer program and I looked through all my
documentation for Fusion and there is literally nothing about it.
Nothing.

But please, go on pretending you know what's going on.

i'm not the one pretending.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:45:11 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
wrote:

On 2014-11-20 17:55:27 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

as the user uses the computer, commonly used files are moved to the ssd
and infrequently used files are moved to the hard drive, without the
user needing to do anything other than use the computer normally.

Would you care to explain how Apple's Fusion Drive differs from the SSD
cache technology that Intel introduced with SandyBridge Z86 chipset?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/i...ching-review/2


Now called Intel "Smart Response Technology" - dreadful name...

as has been explained multiple times already, fusion is not a cache.

You have no idea what it is because you don't have any actual
documentation on how it works.

it's one logical volume that's actually tiered storage where files are
intelligently moved between ssd and the hard drive.

So the marketing material says. Which indicates that it's simply a
cache using the SSD instead of RAM to hold the HD's data. But this is
only a marketing description - there's no actual technical
documentation of how it works exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Drive is interesting. First it
gives a description of how the fusion drive is said to work.

Then it describes a number of tests aimed at determining what exactly
it is that the fusion drive does.

Finally it says:

"The algorithm Fusion Drive uses is not known. There is a report
that Fusion Drive does not work as advertised - that a user
experienced that very frequently accessed large file was not
migrated to the flash drive at a speed acceptable to him."

It seems that nobody outside Apple really knows.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

| "The algorithm Fusion Drive uses is not known. There is a report
| that Fusion Drive does not work as advertised - that a user
| experienced that very frequently accessed large file was not
| migrated to the flash drive at a speed acceptable to him."
|
| It seems that nobody outside Apple really knows.

It's not as though Apple has some kind of "special
sauce". Frequent access is a straightforward thing.
Windows, for instance, tracks how frequently various
software programs are used, for display in the
Add/Remove Programs applet for informational purposes.
If a program is used a lot it can go on the SSD and
that might provide a slight speed increase in loading,
and in some cases a speed increase in operation.

But there's no way to optimize it for data files,
simply because a file is not frequently accessed until
it's been frequently accessed. With something like
a photo that's being worked on, the work may be
done before it registers as frequently accessed,
as opposed to something like a large database that's
used regularly and therefore ends up benefitting from
being stored on the SSD.

It's a clever idea. It's just that it's usefulness
is very limited in real usage.