Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > SSD upgrade for 2010 15" MacBook Pro

SSD upgrade for 2010 15" MacBook Pro
Thread Tools
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 05:58 AM
 
The fact that my hard drive is 90 % is a good excuse for me to upgrade my MacBook Pro with an SSD. I plan on keeping my tradition hard drive and simply take out my optical drive. So I was wondering a few things:

(1) What kind of SSD should I take? I'm eyeing SSDs with capacities of around 180 GB. My brother recommended Intel and Samsung SSDs since they were more reliable and to stay away from anything with a Sandforce controller (which supposedly not only have issues on OS X but also on Windows). However, I found that they are slower and/or more expensive than, say, Corsair SSDs. But since my machine only has 3 Gbit SATA anyway, does it make a difference? With regards to Corsair SSDs in particular, I don't get the difference between the families of models: how does the Force GT series stack up against the Force 3 series? The specs seem identical … 

(2) I was planning on this bay adapter/external DVD drive case. Any comments?

(3) I had the following storage scheme in mind: Use the SSD for the OS, apps, my mails, my Dropbox folder (which contains my current projects), my library (including my mails) and an Aperture library containing only my last few projects. My hard drive (640 GB) will be reformatted in ZFS and house my iTunes library, another Aperture library and perhaps some other less important files and folders.

So the question is how to handle this splitting: should I use hard links from /Volumes/hard drive/Music to ~/Music, for instance?

(4) Should I enable Trim support?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 11:47 AM
 
I just noticed this thread from last September which has come up since posting starting this thread.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 12:27 PM
 
Intel seems to be the most reliable, and the prices are decent now.

Apple uses an SSD which has the same controller as the Samsung 470. They also use a Toshiba controller that is found in the Kingston V+100 series (not V100) SSDs. I don't know if they also use other controllers, but no stock Apple machine uses a Sandforce controller.

My Kingston V+100 doesn't really require TRIM because it has very aggressive garbage collection, but I enabled TRIM anyway because that's what Apple does. It works fine.

As for SSD speed, don't get hung up on it. Even "slow" SSDs will make your aging MacBook Pro feel super fast. The issue is not the sequential transfer speed, but the random access. SSDs have random access speeds that are 100X as fast as traditional platter drives. My "slow" SSD boots up my 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo 13" 2009 MacBook Pro in something like 15 seconds.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 12:38 PM
 
Thanks, Eug, for the comments. I know that it's mostly about access times, but I just thought I'd get the fastest out there. Plus, since I do use Aperture quite a bit, I feel I will also benefit from higher sequential read/write speeds.

In any case, I can't wait for instant app launches and such
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2012, 12:42 PM
 
1) As I've posted a few times before: Moving from an HDD to a slow SSD reduces time spent waiting for the drive by 85%. Go to the fastest SSD, and it's reduced by 88%.

Intel has the best reliability so far, followed by Samsung, but note that all drives on the market have had issues, so check that whatever you pick can be upgraded on a Mac. OCZ only updates under Win 7 with no bootable images posted, so I'm not going to be updating my firmware ever (OCZ Vertex2, 1st gen Sandforce). 2nd gen Sandforce is the fastest, 1st gen Sandforce is generally best bang-for-buck.

The difference between the two Corsair drives is different types of NAND flash. Really don't bother with those details unless you're looking for bragging rights.

2) Should work. Wish someone had put together a kit like that when I was looking for parts to fit mine...

3) Hard links don't work between drives, but symlinks do, and are the best way to do it anyway (hardlinking directories is considered harmful and doesn't even work on most filesystems. HFS+ supports it through a hack.)

4) If the manufacturer recommends it, yes. Intel and Samsung both rely on it being there, while any Sandforce drive works just as well without it.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 05:34 AM
 
After much deliberation, I have placed the order for a 180 GB Corsair Force 3 SSD. The deciding factor was that the addition 60 GB will really come in handy. Also, only Intel seems to make it easy for non-Windows users to upgrade the firmware of their SSDs: they just put iso files online which contains a bootable disk image.

All the necessary equipment should arrive on Tuesday. I will clean up my hard drive a little (I found a defunct fink install from back when I was still using 10.4!), so I will be able to shave off a few GB.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 12:53 PM
 
I just picked up the 512GB Crucial M4 Wedensday, so far so good here.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Austin, TX 78751
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Intel has the best reliability so far, followed by Samsung, but note that all drives on the market have had issues, so check that whatever you pick can be upgraded on a Mac. OCZ only updates under Win 7 with no bootable images posted, so I'm not going to be updating my firmware ever (OCZ Vertex2, 1st gen Sandforce). 2nd gen Sandforce is the fastest, 1st gen Sandforce is generally best bang-for-buck.
What about OWC?
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2012, 06:46 PM
 
Just installed to SSD on two laptops. One, a MacBook Pro, the other a Lenovo x220

The Mac got an OWC 128GB SSD and the Lenovo, a Samsung 830 128GB.
Based upon reading as much as I could find, I did a fresh install of Lion on the Mac, and Win7 on the Lenovo.

I'd also purchased the OWC DVD Drive tray replacement, allowing you to add a second HD in it's place. I installed the original HD in the tray.

The Win7 machine recognized the SSD and TRIM support was active. I went through and stopped defrag, and several other Win7 functions not recommended for SSD's.

Both laptops are quiet and smooth, with a more obvious 'snap' in the Lenovo's behavior.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2012, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur View Post
I just picked up the 512GB Crucial M4 Wedensday, so far so good here.
Make sure you have the latest firmware (Jan. 13, 2012). Otherwise your drive may fail as early as 2012 H2.

Problem: 0x00000f4 error on M4 64GB - Crucial Community

Solution (hopefully): Re: Firmware Update Notifications - Crucial Community

Release Date: 01/13/2012
Change Log:
Changes made in version 0009 (m4 can be updated to revision 0309 directly from either revision 0001, 0002, or 0009)
Correct a condition where an incorrect response to a SMART counter will cause the m4 drive to become unresponsive after 5184 hours of Power-on time. The drive will recover after a power cycle, however, this failure will repeat once per hour after reaching this point. The condition will allow the end user to successfully update firmware, and poses no risk to user or system data stored on the drive.
This firmware update is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED for drives in the field. Although the failure mode due to the SMART Power On Hours counter poses no risk to saved user data, the failure mode can become repetitive, and pose a nuisance to the end user. If the end user has not yet observed this failure mode, this update is required to prevent it from happening.
If you are using a SAS Expander please do not download this Firmware. As soon as we have a Firmware Update that will work in these applications we will release it.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 03:04 AM
 
I will do that. Thanks for the heads up
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 05:17 AM
 
My SSD is here and the optibay adapter should arrive tomorrow. I can't wait!
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 05:49 AM
 
BTW, I just noticed I need a 5 point Torx to disconnect the battery if I follow ifixit's guide to replace the optical drive. I obviously don't have one. Can I skip these steps? I'd rather not, to be honest.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 06:11 AM
 
Looks like the connector is under the battery so you'll need that driver. I'm guessing thats a 2011 MBP? The 2010 uses tri-lobe instead of 5 point and the 2009 uses standard torn T6.

Its certainly possible to change out the optical drive without disconnecting the battery but you'll need to be careful. I'd think twice it you aren't under warranty, though I'm guessing you probably are.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 06:45 AM
 
Looks like it's possible to remove the optical without removing the battery. The other end of the optical cable is under the battery, but with your setup you would simply disconnect the other end of that cable and reattach it to the bay.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 07:02 AM
 
Yeah. And come to think of it, I have changed my hard drive (which is a user replaceable part) without disconnecting the battery.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 07:05 AM
 
Make sure you are ESD safe!

The Shocking Truth (1/4) - YouTube
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Le Flaneur View Post
What about OWC?
Sorry, missed this question before.

OWC uses Sandforce controllers, like OCZ Vertex 2 and 3 (as well as MANY other manufacturers). The only difference is that OWC supports firmware updates from the Mac much better than OCZ does (OCZ recommends booting from a Linux CD with the updater on a USB stick, but they do not offer any premade bootable disks, and even if you make one yourself it still requires network access) and that OCZ drives can often be found fairly cheap at many PC retailers.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Austin, TX 78751
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2012, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
OWC uses Sandforce controllers, like OCZ Vertex 2 and 3 (as well as MANY other manufacturers). The only difference is that OWC supports firmware updates from the Mac much better than OCZ does (OCZ recommends booting from a Linux CD with the updater on a USB stick, but they do not offer any premade bootable disks, and even if you make one yourself it still requires network access) and that OCZ drives can often be found fairly cheap at many PC retailers.
What about the reliability of the flash memory itself? The fact that firmware updates are easier with OWC would seem to be a big advantage, wouldn't it?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2012, 03:41 AM
 
Unfortunately you cannot rely on one manufacturer sticking to a single brand of flash memory - except of course manufacturers that also make their own flash, like Intel. The brand new 520 SSD has a 2nd gen Sandforce controller - that will be very interesting to see, as Intel tends to test their drives far more than other manufacturers.

Easy firmware upgrades has a value - if it's a big value may be up to you. For an older controller like the original Sandforce, I don't think there are many updates still coming out, so it may be more important for a newer controller.
( Last edited by P; Feb 7, 2012 at 03:49 AM. )
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2012, 05:02 AM
 
I've read on Anandtech's review today that Intel's 520 series features a significantly upgraded firmware compared to other manufacturers who also use Sandforce's 2281 controller. And that they have an agreement with Sandforce to release those modifications only after the 2281 has become obsolete. I didn't know that programming a firmware was that much of a hassle … 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2012, 03:24 PM
 
So far so good. I've managed to install OS X in 10~15 minutes from scratch. Installing Xcode felt pretty fast, too I've created symlinks and I'm just waiting for my Aperture library to finish copying.

I've run into one issue with ZFS formatted internal hard drive: one music file had a very, very long file name that HFS+ apparently didn't object to. But for ZFS it was too long.

Regarding the installation: the optical hdd bay I've purchased did not fit 100 %, I had problems to reseat one darn screw. In the end, I had to »retool« the bay a little.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2012, 06:00 PM
 
Any noticeable speed difference? Have you enable L2ARC/ZIL on the SSD?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 12:54 AM
 
This pretty much justifies my avoidance of Sandforce drives in the past. Intel could change that though.

Intel SSD 520 Review: Cherryville Brings Reliability to SandForce

The BSOD is Back, but Not on Intel
Back in October SandForce announced that it had discovered a firmware issue that resulted in unexpected BSODs on SF-2281 drives on certain platforms. Why it took SandForce several months to discover the bug that its customers had been reporting for a while is a separate issue entirely. SandForce quickly pushed out the firmware to OCZ and other partners. Our own internal testing revealed that the updated firmware seemed to have cured the infamous BSOD.

Just as background, our SSD testing is rarely over once the review goes live. Any drive we recommend gets tossed into a primary use machine somewhere within the company. We keep track of drive behavior, including any bugs or performance issues over time. This long term testing process takes place over months. The results of these long term tests are folded into future reviews and recommendations.

The BSOD is caused by a bug in SandForce's power state logic that ultimately results in the drive disconnecting from the system while it's running. It turns out that Windows isn't a fan of you hot un-plugging the drive it's running on, which results in the BSOD. We had two systems that exhibited the BSOD, both of which were fixed by the update last October.

As luck would have it, our own Brian Klug happened to come across an unexpected crash with his 240GB non-Intel SF-2281 based SSD two weeks ago when he migrated it to another machine. The crash was an F4 BSOD, similar in nature to the infamous BSOD issue from last year. While two of the systems we reproduced the BSOD bug on were cured by last year's firmware update, Brian's system (an X58/Core i7 build) was BSODing regularly playing Battlefield 3. Games end up being a great way to trigger the SF-2281 BSOD issue as they frequently switch between periods of idle and load, which does a good job of stressing the power state logic in SandForce's firmware. I immediately sent Brian an Intel SSD 520 to see if the BSOD remained on Intel's drive. Switching to Cherryville caused Brian's BSODs to go away. Indeed most end user reports of SF-2281 BSODs went away with the fixed firmware, but we've still heard of isolated issues that remain unresolved. Whatever Intel has done with the 520's firmware seems to have fixed problems that still remain in the general SF-2281 firmware.

This is actually a dangerous precedent as it means one of two things. The first possibility is that SandForce has been made aware of flaws in its current firmware and chooses against (or is legally prevented from) disclosing it to its partners. The second possibility, and arguably even worse for SandForce, is that Intel was able to identify and fix a bug in the SF-2281 firmware without SandForce knowing it existed or was addressed. I suspect it's the former but as no one is willing to go on the record about the Intel/SandForce agreement I can't be certain.

Intel did go on record saying that the 520 is expected to have far fewer F4/F7 BSODs than any other SF-2281 drive. I asked Intel if I should read into the phrase "far fewer", but the answer was no - the 520 is expected to have similar reliability to the Intel SSD 510 and 320.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 04:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Any noticeable speed difference? Have you enable L2ARC/ZIL on the SSD?
… due to using ZFS you mean? Quickly browsing through my Aperture library a bit suggests that my system is indeed snappier™. I copied my library over night, so I haven't put my system through its paces yet. I haven't enabled L2ARC or ZIL, I wanted to do that after making sure my system has been migrated properly and after I've finished my first backup.

Is there any benchmark you can recommend?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 04:48 AM
 
I've just run XBench and ZFS is quite impressive: my old-school hard drive is significantly »faster« than my SSD.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 06:44 AM
 
OK, that doesn't seem likely. I don't think the writes get any further than RAM if they're truly faster than the SSD.

I know a lot of SSD tests use IOmeter, which has a Mac version now. HFS+ has infamously terrible threading properties, and my concern is how ZFS helps this. If other parts of the OS are designed around the HFS lack of threading, this may not help much.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 11:09 AM
 
Well, I should have done benchmarks before making the switch. That's too late now (I don't feel like doing everything I've done in reverse )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg / Linköping
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Regarding the installation: the optical hdd bay I've purchased did not fit 100 %, I had problems to reseat one darn screw. In the end, I had to »retool« the bay a little.
I had a similar problem with the China Bay I bought on Ebay! I decided that not all screws are really needed to fix the bay sufficiently.

What I really "hate" about all those new threads about SSDs in MBPs, is the fact that by the time I purchased my SSD, a sandforce controlled SSD was the only way to go for an Apple user! Now this seems to have changed!?
I'm glad that my QCZ Vertex2 doesn't make any problems so far but I should stop reading threads like this one - they make me worry!
***
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 12:04 PM
 
Yeah, it was very worrisome to hear about those pesky firmware issues the various drives have. A week ago or so, I would have never pondered to upgrade the firmware of my hard drive or so, a hard drive is a component I have just plugged in and it worked.

In the end, I pretty much had no choice: I wanted more than 128 GB and couldn't afford the 256 GB models -- especially the ones by Intel. (The 520 series isn't available anyway.) In the end, I did the same thing as you, I bit the bullet and hoped it would work. So far, so good, everything runs smoothly. I just hope my machine won't need to be serviced before Apple Care runs out: otherwise, I'd have to put my DVD drive back in, ugh!
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 12:09 PM
 
The big problems with Sandforce are with the second generation. The first generation, which includes your Vertex 2, has worked better.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Well, I should have done benchmarks before making the switch. That's too late now (I don't feel like doing everything I've done in reverse )
If you do them on your setup, I'll do them on mine and we can compare.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 12:49 PM
 
Oreo-

How is your Aperture workflow set up? Excluding import, with Library on the SSD and Masters referenced general Aperture operation should be really fast. If it is not I would be curious to see where any slowdowns come from.

-Allen
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 01:17 PM
 
Well, my first idea was to create a »current« library on my SSD and store old photos on my hard drive. I also wanted to see how much of a difference ZFS does. On some benchmarks, it does seem to offer huge benefits, but it's curious to see whether this translates to actual performance improvements in practice.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 02:21 PM
 
The nature of the Aperture database should (except for batch import) make drive r/w speed relatively very unimportant as compared to latency.

Early-2011 17" MBP with 8 GB RAM Aperture is essentially instant with the Library on SSD. I start with Masters referenced on the SSD (for convenience, not for speed) then relocate them to externals after editing.

-Allen
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 08:06 PM
 
I've definitely been seeing an increase in battery life since installing my SSD. I've yet to take out the optical drive and put in the old HDD because I have one question:

I am assuming the second HDD will decrease the battery life if it's running alongside the SSD. my question is: if I unmount it, will that kill the power to the HDD? and then, if I do need it, I can mount it and deal with the power drain at my leisure. Is this how this works or am I way off base here?
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 03:20 AM
 
In principle, I can unmount my ZFS-formatted hard drive, yes, but in practice, I can't since I store a lot of information on there (e. g. my Documents folder and my large Aperture library is on there).

@SierraDragon
I've played a little with two libraries, perhaps you can help me out here: I have a book I'm working on right now and in principle, I can export it to my second library located on my ssd.

If I work on a book which contains images from multiple projects, what happens upon export? Do I also import the relevant projects automatically or does it destroy my project structure? Since Aperture's handling of books is rather weird (if I copy books, they're linked, e. g. if I remove images from one book, it removes them from all associated books), I'm hesitating a bit to try it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 01:31 PM
 
Oreo-

All my print output goes through Photoshop v5.5 to an Epson SP3800, so I am specifically inexperienced with using Aperture to make books. I keep meaning to try it but have not. Not that I dis Aperture for printing, it is just that I have been using PS for so long and so far have been too lazy to learn a new color-managed workflow. I will be interested to hear your comments after your book is in hand.

Whenever I am curious about an Aperture workflow that I have not tried before I make a test Library(s) and experiment.

Project structure is not affected when you make books or Albums. Books and Albums just consist of pointers to image files that live in Projects. You can create and/or delete Albums and books at will with no impact on the Masters or Versions (Version=Master+Edits) that they are pointed to.

In general IMO having one main Library is much desirable to get full searching benefit of the database. Aperture v3 now fully supports merging Libraries but the process has often been reported to produce flaky results, so before merging Libraries back both up first and verify carefully after the merge.

Using a single Library on underfilled RAID0 HDD arrays or SSD drives I have always found Aperture to be rock solid. Nevertheless I strongly believe that one should back up original image files before import into Aperture or any other images management app.

HTH

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Feb 9, 2012 at 02:40 PM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur View Post
I just picked up the 512GB Crucial M4 Wedensday, so far so good here.
It would be great if you could further report on your experiences with the M4 after using it for a bit.

-Allen
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2012, 05:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Project structure is not affected when you make books or Albums. Books and Albums just consist of pointers to image files that live in Projects. You can create and/or delete Albums and books at will with no impact on the Masters or Versions (Version=Master+Edits) that they are pointed to.
I understand that how Aperture works. But this is only the way it works within one library. If I export a project, an album or a book to another project, the masters are exported to another library. The purpose of this is to have a way to edit things on the go.

If you export a project, then everything is self-contained and simple. But books and albums may consist of photos from several projects and it's not clear to me whether Aperture exports
(1) all projects that contain photos in that album,
(2) all projects, but only the photos contained in the album or
(3) it does something different (e. g. concatenate the photos into one project).
I guess I'll have to try. But I wanted to do that after making a backup (this is something I'll do this weekend).
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Using a single Library on underfilled RAID0 HDD arrays or SSD drives I have always found Aperture to be rock solid.
That won't work on my setup, my SSD is too small to fit OS and my complete Aperture library. A sufficiently large SSD was out of financial reach.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2012, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
...my SSD is too small to fit OS and my complete Aperture library. A sufficiently large SSD was out of financial reach.
"SSD too small" is an issue most of us face while we wait for prices to fall. IMO creative use of exterior (or optical drive slot) HDDs is the solution to small SSD size. Aperture as an example can be configured with the Library on the SSD and Masters referenced elsewhere; usually the resultant Library will be small enough to fit on the SSD if Previews are set to a reasonable size (I set to MBP display size).

IMO storing Masters inside the Library ("managed") is only appropriate with a very small Library.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But this is only the way it works within one library. If I export a project, an album or a book to another project, the masters are exported to another library. The purpose of this is to have a way to edit things on the go.

If you export a project, then everything is self-contained and simple. But books and albums may consist of photos from several projects and it's not clear to me whether Aperture exports
(1) all projects that contain photos in that album,
(2) all projects, but only the photos contained in the album or
(3) it does something different (e. g. concatenate the photos into one project).
Aperture does none of the above. A normal export of one image, an album, or a Project simply makes a new batch from the individual selected image files (not a "Project") of complete stand-alone image files outside of Aperture without changing the Aperture Library. Those new files can then be emailed; opened in Preview or other apps; imported into another Aperture Library as new image files located in one or more new or pre-existing Projects, etc.

One can also export albums, projects, etc. as a new Library without changing the existing Aperture Library. The purpose of that function is to create a new Library rather than "to have a way to edit things on the go."

Aperture has no good way to edit things on the go if the main Library lives elsewhere, which totally sucks. Folks have been asking for an Apple-supported easy laptop-to-desktop library synch methodology since v1, but still only workarounds exist. The main reason that I went from MP+MBP to desktop-replacement MBP (with referenced Masters) was because the laptop-to-desktop library synch workarounds all are a) flaky and b) a PITA.

The 2011 desktop-replacement MBP using SSD for an Aperture Library and referenced Masters works spectacularly as long as one has 8 GB RAM.

-Allen
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2012, 05:09 PM
 
I think you have misread my original post, SierraDragon.
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Aperture does none of the above. A normal export of one image, an album, or a Project simply makes a new batch from the individual selected image files (not a "Project") of complete stand-alone image files outside of Aperture without changing the Aperture Library.
Sure it does: if you select an object (e. g. an album, project or book), right click on it, you can export it into a new Library (Export > Project as new Library). Aperture then creates a new library at the specified location. Aperture respects the structure the object, e. g. if the object was originally located in the folders 2011 > 2011.10, it will also create those folders in the exported library and place your object there. I'm referring to the function you talk about here:
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
One can also export albums, projects, etc. as a new Library without changing the existing Aperture Library. The purpose of that function is to create a new Library rather than "to have a way to edit things on the go."
Yes, that's the function I'm talking about.
Since books are a bit finicky in Aperture, I was worried to export the book I'm currently working on into an external library.
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Aperture has no good way to edit things on the go if the main Library lives elsewhere, which totally sucks.
The problem is not Aperture, it's how to deal with conflicting edits. If you're working with text files and such, you can use other ways to resolve conflicts when merging those two versions. With images, there is no such thing.

To be honest, I haven't merged projects back in Aperture, so I have yet to see what troubles I run into in practice.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2012, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The problem is not Aperture, it's how to deal with conflicting edits. If you're working with text files and such, you can use other ways to resolve conflicts when merging those two versions. With images, there is no such thing.
The synch problem is Aperture. Differing image edits are totally manageable in a database, Filemaker has been doing it for decades. The easiest way would be to simply add any new edits as new Versions; Masters are never modified anyway. Or worst case add changes as a (flagged) new Master image file if the DB is unsure. Very easy.

What most of us want is the ability to have a database on a field laptop that can easily be synched to a main desktop database. I was doing that with Duo docks and Filemaker 15 years ago.

-Allen
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2012, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
It would be great if you could further report on your experiences with the M4 after using it for a bit.

-Allen
Macbook Pro (2.2 i7 Quad) 8GB Ram (500GB / 7200RPM orig - M4 512SSD now)
Updated Firmware 3.09

I do mostly web development and graphic design mostly. I also have a bootcamp partition I use for occasional gaming as well. I haven't done any hard benchmarking compared to the other drive other than just a bandwidth check with Disk Speed Test. I get about 570MB/s read and about 280MB/sec write.

System boot is about 12 sec.
Photoshop opens in about 10sec on first launch then about 2 sec after.
Web Browsers (Safari, Chrome Firefox launch in about 2-3 sec, 1 sec after.
Using handbrake I get over 300fps avg when converting a 1.4 GB file from DiVX to h.264

In Windows I used AS SSD benchmark and the speeds show about 280 read / 280 write. Might be a driver related thing, but I don't do much work there to worry about it. Items launch there within a few seconds as well.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 12:18 AM
 
Thanks for that. I was mostly interested in the stability, so all the performance info is a bonus.

Thanks!

-Allen
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur View Post
Photoshop opens in about 10sec on first launch then about 2 sec after.
Interesting. On my 2011 MBP with 128 GB Apple SSD PS 5.5 opens in about 3 seconds no matter what. Of course, who cares 3 sec versus 2 or 10 sec? Just interesting.

-Allen
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 01:59 PM
 
I'm think I had some background crap going on. I've been doing a bunch of server work on this thing, that I finally have nailed. So just tested again after a reboot and opened in 3 sec on a fresh start. Sounds like a case of 'user error' on my part LOL. Stability is great. I haven't had any random freezes, crashes or reboots. I am usually running 8-10 apps at the same time in my work flow so, things have been a champ, along with 2 development web servers running in the background.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2