4 ms·

> If it's just a minor software tweak, then I (in good heart) suggest the author to quit his job and create an equivalent for Linux/Windows and sell it for half

> If it's just a minor software tweak, then I (in good heart) suggest the author to quit his job and create an equivalent for Linux/Windows and sell it for half what Apple sells FusionDrives and make a huge amount of money. http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org for Linux https://blogs.oracle.com/brendan/entry/test https://blogs.oracle.com/brendan/entry/test for ZFS And yes, Fusion drive is effectively a caching system.

taligent 14y ago
You have to patch the kernel ? That doesn't like a good solution at all.
pooriaazimi 14y ago
@taligent: You're hellbanned, it seems!!!
pooriaazimi 14y ago
I can't view the oracle link (http://www.oracle.com/splash/rpls/embargoed.html http://www.oracle.com/splash/rpls/embargoed.html) - it's something enterprisy I'm sure, so it's even more expensive than FusionDrive (with much better support and more features), but the Linux thing you linked is a caching system, which FusionDrive is not. > Fusion drive is effectively a caching system. Oh... No, it's not. It's a block-level tiering solution which (mostly) promotes important "blocks" automatically and intelligently when computer is idle (so as not to slow things down when the user is working). Very, very different from caching, very different technology (Apple has been working on CoreStorage, Apple's logical volume manager for years). Ars article[1] has more info. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive-how-it-works-and-how-to-roll-your-own/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive-ho...
- mercurial 14y ago
  Thanks for the Ars link, very informative. Based on this article, it looks more like a kind of intelligent, dynamic RAID0 than a cache, which makes me dubitative with regards to its reliability (talk about multiplying SPOFs...). I'd rather go for a smaller SSD holding the system in this case.
- allerratio 14y ago
  I didn't say it's an cache system. I said that it effectively is a caching system. You won't notice much difference to a write back cache.

taligent 14y ago

You have to patch the kernel ? That doesn't like a good solution at all.

pooriaazimi 14y ago

@taligent: You're hellbanned, it seems!!!

pooriaazimi 14y ago

I can't view the oracle link (http://www.oracle.com/splash/rpls/embargoed.html http://www.oracle.com/splash/rpls/embargoed.html) - it's something enterprisy I'm sure, so it's even more expensive than FusionDrive (with much better support and more features), but the Linux thing you linked is a caching system, which FusionDrive is not. > Fusion drive is effectively a caching system. Oh... No, it's not. It's a block-level tiering solution which (mostly) promotes important "blocks" automatically and intelligently when computer is idle (so as not to slow things down when the user is working). Very, very different from caching, very different technology (Apple has been working on CoreStorage, Apple's logical volume manager for years). Ars article[1] has more info. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive-how-it-works-and-how-to-roll-your-own/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive-ho...

mercurial 14y ago
Thanks for the Ars link, very informative. Based on this article, it looks more like a kind of intelligent, dynamic RAID0 than a cache, which makes me dubitative with regards to its reliability (talk about multiplying SPOFs...). I'd rather go for a smaller SSD holding the system in this case.
allerratio 14y ago
I didn't say it's an cache system. I said that it effectively is a caching system. You won't notice much difference to a write back cache.