|
| ▲ | kstrauser 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I've gotta agree. I'm not sure what expensive storage hardware would be both relevant today and unable to migrate off CoreStorage. For example, my most expensive storage is a NAS with an iSCSI target, and it couldn't care less what blocks I write to it. If I had a CoreStorage setup on it, I could migrate the data to a new target and then reuse that space for something else. The hardware wouldn't mind, or even know, that I'd changed what's on it. You mentioned old, obsolete Fusion drives. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything else where that'd matter, so you're probably right about that. AFAIK you can reformat those to use something other than CoreStorage if you're actually stuck using those boat anchors. |
|
| ▲ | MilaM 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| CoreStorage was also used for HFS+ formatted and encrypted external storage like Time Machine backups. If you have any of those in your archive you might not be able to read them in the future. |
|
| ▲ | mikepurvis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sidebar, but as an end user, I remain annoyed that there isn't seemingly something that's a worthy successor to fusion drives. Like I have an Unraid box with dual NVMe (RAID1) as the "cache" drive and a bunch of spinning disks as the "array", but it's also very manual, like torrents get downloaded first to cache and then a nightly job syncs them to the array. Feels like a real missed opportunity to not be able to have this kind of config transparently managed. |
| |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The successor is SSDs, and I think for what Apple was using fusion drives for they are worthy successors. The 2.5” form factor also took up a ton of space in a laptop form factor. With my NAS box (TrueNAS ZFS) I don’t bother with a cache. I struggle to justify the cost/benefit ratio. The sustained write speed of a 3.5” disk isn’t so bad for the most common NAS use cases. If I could go back to 2024 I think I’d use a m.2 2280 array for my NAS just because my present tense brain would think it was cheap. I don’t even hoard that much content so 4-8TB would be fine. Maybe one of these nifty things would be fun: https://www.bee-link.com/products/beelink-me-mini-n150 | |
| ▲ | hypercube33 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Windows storage spaces can do this as well. It's been pulled from the non server line for 11 years or something. | |
| ▲ | jmgao 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | bcachefs with foreground_target/background_target/promote_target set appropriately does this automagically: https://bcachefs.org/Caching/ |
|
|
| ▲ | hagbard_c 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I have one of those in an ageing late 2009 27" iMac running Linux. It is a Seagate ST2000DX001-1CM1, a 2TB "SSHD" which comes down to having 8 GB of NAND storage bolted on to a conventional 2TB drive. It doesn't need any special driver to do its thing so I wonder what that CoreStorage bit is supposed to be about. |
| |
| ▲ | wtallis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Did you install that SSHD as an aftermarket upgrade? I thought the Fusion Drive configurations shipped by Apple used normal hard drives and separate SSDs and were purely software-managed (and also used much more than 8GB of flash). | |
| ▲ | mrpippy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Apple sold iMacs for many years that had a completely separate SSD and HDD, and CoreStorage was used to combine them into a single block device which was then partitioned and formatted as HFS+ or APFS. |
|
