Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Desktop Hardware
Mac hard drive test utilities and CoreStorage
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="300ZX Fan" data-source="post: 1497706" data-attributes="member: 257263"><p>I saw this post today and started thinking about it. It's good that these guys have a product that can test a fusion drive on a component by component basis, but I think file recovery of any kind has the potential to be a nightmare that a lot of advocates of the Fusion drive are overlooking. This of course doesn't have anything to do with the Scannerz app.</p><p></p><p>The Fusion drive works by disk management that's transferring data from the "real" hard drive to the SSD when active, and then apparently back again when more inactive. Let's just say for the sake of argument that one component, either the SSD or the actual hard drive fails. What are you left with?</p><p></p><p>Todays applications use shared libraries that are loaded on demand. If an application that's frequently loaded it but doesn't use all of its libraries until needed, then those libraries would likely remain on the HD. If the SSD in the Fusion fails, then the main part of your app is gone with a lot of little libraries hanging around on the HD. If the HD fails, then you're stuck with an app that will eventually want to reload those now gone libraries. Some applications also rely on other applications, and the same problem still exists.</p><p></p><p>It's certainly good that you can use this tool to find the bad part of a Fusion drive, but users need to be aware of the fact that if one of the components fails, it seems to me you're totally hosed. I had a hard drive develop bad sectors and when I attempted to recover data, I could get most of it. I could tell what couldn't be recovered because when a copy from the bad drive to another drive would hit a bad region, the OS would issue and input/output error saying it couldn't read the bad drive. I could tell what was bad and what needed to be replaced or renewed. It was a PIA, but it was doable. This is <strong><em>NOT</em></strong> doable with a Fusion drive.</p><p></p><p>I don't think the Fusion drive is a good implementation. I would have thought they would have put the core OS and applications on the SSD and then used an HD with a very large cache on it in conjunction with it. In other words, I would have locked items that are mostly read and rarely written to on the SSD and let the HD handle anything with a lot of writes. This would put most user data on the HD. In this manner you could at least figure out what could and couldn't be recovered.</p><p></p><p>Moral of the story: If you have a Fusion Drive, keep good backups, and on an HD, too (I <strong><em>still</em></strong> don't trust SSDs yet)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="300ZX Fan, post: 1497706, member: 257263"] I saw this post today and started thinking about it. It's good that these guys have a product that can test a fusion drive on a component by component basis, but I think file recovery of any kind has the potential to be a nightmare that a lot of advocates of the Fusion drive are overlooking. This of course doesn't have anything to do with the Scannerz app. The Fusion drive works by disk management that's transferring data from the "real" hard drive to the SSD when active, and then apparently back again when more inactive. Let's just say for the sake of argument that one component, either the SSD or the actual hard drive fails. What are you left with? Todays applications use shared libraries that are loaded on demand. If an application that's frequently loaded it but doesn't use all of its libraries until needed, then those libraries would likely remain on the HD. If the SSD in the Fusion fails, then the main part of your app is gone with a lot of little libraries hanging around on the HD. If the HD fails, then you're stuck with an app that will eventually want to reload those now gone libraries. Some applications also rely on other applications, and the same problem still exists. It's certainly good that you can use this tool to find the bad part of a Fusion drive, but users need to be aware of the fact that if one of the components fails, it seems to me you're totally hosed. I had a hard drive develop bad sectors and when I attempted to recover data, I could get most of it. I could tell what couldn't be recovered because when a copy from the bad drive to another drive would hit a bad region, the OS would issue and input/output error saying it couldn't read the bad drive. I could tell what was bad and what needed to be replaced or renewed. It was a PIA, but it was doable. This is [B][I]NOT[/I][/B] doable with a Fusion drive. I don't think the Fusion drive is a good implementation. I would have thought they would have put the core OS and applications on the SSD and then used an HD with a very large cache on it in conjunction with it. In other words, I would have locked items that are mostly read and rarely written to on the SSD and let the HD handle anything with a lot of writes. This would put most user data on the HD. In this manner you could at least figure out what could and couldn't be recovered. Moral of the story: If you have a Fusion Drive, keep good backups, and on an HD, too (I [B][I]still[/I][/B] don't trust SSDs yet) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Desktop Hardware
Mac hard drive test utilities and CoreStorage
Top