Are you planning to use (or are using) AMD's Fuzedrive with your socket AM4 or socket TR4 system?

Mar 27, 2009
12,816
22
106
#1
Fuzedrive is AMD's automated tiered storage system (created by Enmotus) where the user combines "fast tier" storage (eg, Optane SSD or Memory, NVMe NAND SSD, SATA SSD) with a "capacity tier" storage (eg, SATA or SAS SSD or hard dive) for a single volume up a 10TB volume.

So for example, a 280GB Optane SSD plus 480GB SATA SSD would yield a 760GB single volume. A 1TB SSD plus 4TB SATA hard drive would yield a 5TB single volume. etc.

It can be used for either primary or secondary storage. (Eg, single NVMe SSD for primary storage + optane memory combined with HDD for a single volume secondary storage)

P.S. I am not sure if two licenses can be used on the same computer to make four drives into two automated drives though (Eg, two SSDs (one of which needs to be SATA) combined together for a single volume primary storage + SSD and HDD combined together for a single volume secondary storage). I didn't see any mention of this in the Enmotus for Ryzen FAQ.
 
Last edited:

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,851
371
96
#2
No I want my storage devices to act like the storage devices they are, as I want to be clear on what is on each device.
 
Mar 27, 2009
12,816
22
106
#3
No I want my storage devices to act like the storage devices they are, as I want to be clear on what is on each device.
Here is something I found from the FuzeDrive Windows Server User Guide:

https://www.enmotus.com/hubfs/PDFs/User Guides/Enmotus FuzeDrive v1.2.1 Windows User Guide.pdf




I will call or email to see if this is also supported on the Ryzen version. (The FAQ does say the Ryzen version is derived from the Server Fuzedrive so I am thinking there is a good chance this manual control is supported)

EDIT: It is not available in the AMD for Ryzen version.
 
Last edited:

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,851
371
96
#4

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
666
182
96
#5
I only have Linux so I can't use this anyway even if I wanted to.
The server version is also available for Linux. FAQ says Enmotus is still exploring Linux support for this AMD consumer version.
 
Aug 11, 2016
34
0
46
#6
this looks like windows 10 Storage Spaces, already build in the OS.
 
Feb 25, 2004
21,000
22
106
#7
It says its Windows 10 only so unless I can use it in a VM, no.

It looks like they copied all of Intel's bad ideas with this now that the details finally came out so its just as pointless as ISRT. Its actually worse because you are expected to pay $20 for it and still require a top tier motherboard. Its obviously a software solution but requires hardware.
 
Mar 11, 2000
22,585
0
106
#8
Fusion Drive... errr... FuzeDrive really makes little sense to me. Basically, they take SSDs and hard drives and complexify them, to increase their chances of failure and data loss.

No thank you.
 
Mar 27, 2009
12,816
22
106
#9
this looks like windows 10 Storage Spaces, already build in the OS.
The Fuzedrive for Ryzen FAQ does acknowledge Windows 10 has auto tiering for data drives, but not boot.

How does this compare to Microsoft Storage Spaces?

Storage Spaces for Windows10 is a RAID type solution which requires at least three drives to operate. It does not provide any performance benefits and is similar to Mirroring. You actually lose the capacity of the original boot drive that contains the Windows OS since that volume is mirrored in the other two drives. Also, Storage Spaces Does not support bootable client environments. You cannot create tiered bootable volumes, only data drives. Hence our FuzeDrive™ is unique in this respect. FuzeDrive™ is a real time MicroTiering solution (not caching like SRT!!) that allows the full use of the capacity of all the drives. In a Normal PC, that is usually a fast drive such as an NVME M.2 or other SSD and a slow drive such as an HDD. You get the full performance of the SSD with the combined capacity of both of them. Also, you do not have to wait for the Hot data to be moved at a later time. As soon as the Machine Learning algorithm acknowledges that certain blocks are Hot, it moves them to the faster Tier so the next time they are needed they are available immediately.
Here are some instructions I found on how to set-up Storage spaces with auto tiering. It is done through Powershell (rather than with GUI as with Windows Server):

https://diywhitebox.com/how-to-configure-tiered-storage-spaces-on-windows-10/

Eventually I suspect Windows will add the GUI, but I think Microsoft really needs to make auto tiering available for boot volumes in order to make it interesting for the average PC user.
 

EXCellR8

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2010
2,854
61
126
#10
Eh, sounds like a good way to create a fragmented mess and lose data.

I'll just buy another SSHD if I want a faster hard drive, but I'm actually quite content with my drive speeds as-is.
 

dlerious

Senior member
Mar 4, 2004
647
27
116
#11
No here as well. If I need speed I'll put it on SSD/NVMe (like OS). If I don't, it'll go on a spinner. I wonder what kind of hoops I'd have to jump through if, for instance, I'm replacing my 250GB SSD with a 500GB SSD and I want to make an image.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
4,323
15
106
#12
Another way to lose data? Sign me up.
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
6,997
1
126
#13
I wonder what kind of hoops I'd have to jump through if, for instance, I'm replacing my 250GB SSD with a 500GB SSD and I want to make an image.
Edit: NM, you mean using Fuze. My bad.
 
Last edited:

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,321
139
136
#14
I really wish ZFS had caught on. I'd love unified storage.
 
Mar 27, 2009
12,816
22
106
#15
I wonder what kind of hoops I'd have to jump through if, for instance, I'm replacing my 250GB SSD with a 500GB SSD and I want to make an image.
That is what the FAQ says about replacing a small SSD with a larger one:

How do I change the size of the fast media or the slow media?

Changing the size of the fast or slow media is not directly supported. If you wish to change the SSD or NVMe device (the fast tier device), use the Remove Acceleration feature of the FuzeDrive utility, replace or add a different SSD (can be a different size, smaller or larger than the original), re-run the FuzeDrive utility and re-run Accelerate My Bootdrive.
And what the FAQ says about getting data off drives to replace with a new hard drive:

How do I get my data off the drives to replace with a new Hard Drive?

Follow the normal procedure for backing up a drive using a new/larger drive than the FuzeDrive and/or a USB backup drive with a larger capacity than the FuzeDrive. Back up the entire drive using your favorite Backup software, replace the drive and restore the backup image back to the standalone new replacement drive. Make sure it boots ok. Using the FuzeDrive utility, delete the previous FuzeDrive (or open up an Administrator Command Line and type ecmd --delete_all). You should now be able to recreate the FuzeDrive.
So back-up as formulav8 mentioned, then replace drive and restore image before recreating the FuzeDrive.
 
Mar 27, 2009
12,816
22
106
#16
Here is a video Emotus put up showing a scenario of fragmented 3TB hard drive vs. the same fragmented 3TB hard drive plus 120GB SSD coupled together as fuzedrive:


When I compared from the point of signing into Origin to the BF4 splash screen it was about 6x longer for the HDD vs. the SSD/HDD fuzedrive.
 
Last edited:

CatMerc

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2016
1,111
36
106
#17
I do think it's rather amusing how some enthusiasts avoid automated systems because they want control, even to the detriment of their wallet.

Block level caching/tiering both makes your life easier since you don't have to micromanage what you want in fast/slow storage, but also saves SSD space for the speedup. Often there's a lot of data that you don't need on the SSD to get the speed, but it will sit on it anyway if you install a game there. These tiering solutions automatically move the important blocks around while keeping the less important ones on the HDD, giving you most of the speedup at a fraction of the install size on the SSD.

It's a really neat money saver for a lot of use cases.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,851
371
96
#18
If I could afford to build a Socket TR4 system, then I can afford using only SSDs with no HDDs in the build. With Ext HDDs for backups.

Come to think of it, I'm doing that now with my current rig.
 

CatMerc

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2016
1,111
36
106
#19
If I could afford to build a Socket TR4 system, then I can afford using only SSDs with no HDDs in the build. With Ext HDDs for backups.
Wasting money isn't the same as spending a lot of money.
 
Feb 25, 2004
21,000
22
106
#21
It's a really neat money saver for a lot of use cases.
I mean, it would be if I didn't have to buy a high end motherboard just to get access to it and then pay for the software as well. All that and its tied to the OS install. Its to rigid and I don't really control it. And then the setup ends up complicated. And why is it limited to 120GB again? Why all these limits on what I can do? Complicated and rigid in its requirements and limited in its potential scope. All wrapped up in a dubious value proposition. The same disappointing offering as Intel IMO. I'm disappointed because I was actually excited for a new better offering in this space.

What I really want is a hardware setup that just presents a device right to the system with the OS being completely unaware of its existence. I'd probably pay for that even if it was tied to the board.

In the end you're probably better off using Primocache on Windows or bcache/flashcache/dmcache on linux. At least if you replace your motherboard with a different you can still keep using those.
 

CatMerc

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2016
1,111
36
106
#22
While true, using HDDs with ThreadRipper will just bottleneck the system.
Depends on what you're doing, and how much of that storage is hot.

For most use cases, a FuzeDrive like solution would be great.

I mean, it would be if I didn't have to buy a high end motherboard just to get access to it and then pay for the software as well. All that and its tied to the OS install. Its to rigid and I don't really control it. And then the setup ends up complicated. And why is it limited to 120GB again? Why all these limits on what I can do? Complicated and rigid in its requirements and limited in its potential scope. All wrapped up in a dubious value proposition. The same disappointing offering as Intel IMO. I'm disappointed because I was actually excited for a new better offering in this space.

What I really want is a hardware setup that just presents a device right to the system with the OS being completely unaware of its existence. I'd probably pay for that even if it was tied to the board.

In the end you're probably better off using Primocache on Windows or bcache/flashcache/dmcache on linux. At least if you replace your motherboard with a different you can still keep using those.
I wouldn't call B350 expensive. And the benefit this has over PrimoCache and Intel RST is lower system resource usage, and keeping all storage usable, rather than having some of it used purely for caching.

That said I agree that the limitations are quite irritating, and I have voiced this concern to both AMD and Enmotus.
 

dlerious

Senior member
Mar 4, 2004
647
27
116
#23
Here is a video Emotus put up showing a scenario of fragmented 3TB hard drive vs. the same fragmented 3TB hard drive plus 120GB SSD coupled together as fuzedrive:


When I compared from the point of signing into Origin to the BF4 splash screen it was about 6x longer for the HDD vs. the SSD/HDD fuzedrive.
I'd like to see a comparison with SSD only as well and for good measure a comparison with HDD that was defragged. Only watched maybe 5 minutes before the lack of sound drove me away.
 
Aug 25, 2001
42,963
378
126
#25
What I really want is a hardware setup that just presents a device right to the system with the OS being completely unaware of its existence. I'd probably pay for that even if it was tied to the board.
I am reminded of a "hardware caching IDE controller card - VLB", that I once used with my Win3.11 and then Win95 rig. Once Win95 came around, it defaulted to powering-off the machine, once it had shut down. Well, the hardware cache, hadn't been able to write-back the data to the drives in time, and Windows started corrupting itself.

I think that caching schemes, that are controlled by software (drivers) embedded in the OS, that can exert finer-grained control over the caching and write-back semantics, makes more sense, as far as avoiding data loss, due to a "black box hardware implementation".

I mean, I get it, that most of these software-based implementations, are Windows-specific, and that a pure hardware solution can be OS-agnostic, and amenable to a dual-boot situation (if you are lucky, I guess), but I would rather go with a safer solution.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS