Glandrim wrote:
But the question still is if the creation of the fusiondrive will crash the bootcamp or if i can use it afterwards.
No, as long as you use the correct disk slices to create the Fusion drive (CS or APFS), you should be fine. APFS uses the -main and -secondary qualifiers when creating the APFS Container. APFS fusion does not allow adding physical slices after the Container has been created, but CS Fusion does (see https://blog.fosketts.net/2011/08/05/undocumented-corestorage-commands/ for reference). For example,
diskutil cs adddisk
Usage: diskutil coreStorage addDisk lvgUUID NewMemberDeviceName
Add a new physical volume to a CoreStorage logical volume group.
Ownership of the affected disks is required.
Example: diskutil coreStorage addDisk
11111111-2222-3333-4444-555555555555 disk4s2
and
diskutil apfs adddisk
diskutil: did not recognize APFS verb "adddisk"; type "diskutil apfs" for a list
CS Fusion allows more than 2 disks, while APFS Fusion does not.
But i do not understand why the size of the drives (SSD 1TB and HDD 0.5TB) matters for performance.
A Fusion drive allows blocks to move from the faster to the slower disk. Unused storage blocks are moved to the slower disk, which requires the slower disk to have more disk space, than the SSD part. In macOS Catalina, APFS will not let you create a Fusion Container if the 'slower' part (HDD slice) is smaller than the 'faster' part (SSD slice) in terms of disk space.
For example,
diskutil apfs createContainer
Usage: diskutil apfs createContainer <disk> [<disk>]
diskutil apfs createContainer -main <disk> [-secondary <disk>]
where <disk> = MountPoint|DiskIdentifier|DeviceNode
Create an empty APFS Container. You can then add APFS Volumes with the
diskutil apfs addVolume verb. If you specify two disks, then a "Fusion"
Container is created, with the performance usages assigned automatically
unless you use the -main and -secondary options, in which case, the secondary
disk is assumed to be on "slower" hardware. The secondary disk is often used
to store associated "auxiliary" data, such as a Boot Camp Assistant partition.
Ownership of any affected disks is required.
Example: diskutil apfs createContainer disk0s2
I personally prefer the CS implementation, not the APFS one. Also, APFS is a very buggy file system/container system. CS or ZFS is a much better alternative.