Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Lambert
Apr 14, 2018
If you can read this, I'm posting in bad faith.


Fallen Rib

Shaocaholica posted:

I lost a 2TB MX500 out in the field in an external enclosure with my name and phone number. Letís see if it turns up.

Are you Jenny, 8675309?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

zer0spunk
Nov 6, 2000

devil never even lived


The samsung 860 2tb sata drive hit 229 today..lowest I've seen it so I pulled the trigger. If it hits for lower on BF/CM I'll rebuy and return I guess

Any notable price alert sites I should be using?

Peanut3141
Oct 30, 2009


zer0spunk posted:

The samsung 860 2tb sata drive hit 229 today..lowest I've seen it so I pulled the trigger. If it hits for lower on BF/CM I'll rebuy and return I guess

Any notable price alert sites I should be using?

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/i...0&t=0&m=32&i=25

Refine filters to whatever you desire and set price alert to whatever makes it worth returning to you.

Klyith
Aug 3, 2007

GBS Pledge Week


zer0spunk posted:

The samsung 860 2tb sata drive hit 229 today..lowest I've seen it so I pulled the trigger. If it hits for lower on BF/CM I'll rebuy and return I guess

WD Blue 2TBs have been $200 in the past, so I'd expect they'll be cheaper than that if they show up on black friday deals. But if you're dead set on Samsung that might be the best you see.

I have a feeling the 2tb drives won't be huge black friday discounts, IIRC they weren't last year. There's a premium charge on high capacity drives, 4TB drives are still over $500.


However, Adata Su800 2tb is $185 on newegg today which is a drat good price.

zer0spunk
Nov 6, 2000

devil never even lived


I'm retiring a 2012 256 830 drive that's been my boot drive for 7.5+ years to external drive duty. I figured I'd stick with samsung barring any crazy issues with the 860s, but everything I've seen on them seems solid.

That 256 was 350 when I bought it in 2012, 4tb drives being in that same price range is a nice tangible sign of progress.

HalloKitty
Sep 30, 2005

Adjust the bass and let the Alpine blast


zer0spunk posted:

I'm retiring a 2012 256 830 drive that's been my boot drive for 7.5+ years to external drive duty. I figured I'd stick with samsung barring any crazy issues with the 860s, but everything I've seen on them seems solid.

That 256 was 350 when I bought it in 2012, 4tb drives being in that same price range is a nice tangible sign of progress.

The 830 is, in my opinion, one of the all time great SSDs. It was a breath of fresh air over the small, slow and unreliable ssds that were common prior to it. I'll be keeping mine running for some time to come.

BobHoward
Feb 13, 2012

The only thing white people deserve is a bullet to their empty skull


BIG HEADLINE posted:

NVMe excels at processing large files, like massive video files and database stuff. The first-gen NVMe drives oft times performed worse than their SATA counterparts at processing small files (such as the kind used in general computing tasks/a lot of games). Intel's Optane and Samsung's Z-NAND bridge the gap, but neither company seems in a hurry to make the technologies financially viable for consumer/enthusiast use.

Wat. Nothing you said about small-file performance makes any sense, NVMe is inherently better at that. Also database performance is not like video file performance, databases are typically very small accesses in random order.

NVME doesn't require new memory technology like Optane or Z-NAND to achieve good small file performance, either. One of the most important design objectives for NVMe was to dramatically reduce the CPU and PCIe overhead per I/O compared to SATA. It wasn't hard for the standards body to do this since SATA is a terrible protocol which suffers greatly from literal 1980s baggage, but they put in the extra effort and designed NVMe to have probably close to the minimum theoretical overhead per I/O. If all else is as equal as possible (flash memory type & quantity, whether the drives have DRAM, implementation quality, etc), NVMe kills SATA on small file performance.

quote:

The newer ones have parity with/slightly exceed the performance of SATA 3 drives,

How on earth did you get this idea? NVMe drives have been blowing away SATA3 drives for a long time. The only case I'm aware of where there's parity or possibly even role reversal is when you compare a QLC NVMe like the Intel 660p to a good MLC or TLC SATA -- but such results aren't a problem with NVMe's performance, they're because QLC flash is really slow.

BobHoward fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Nov 19, 2019

redeyes
Sep 14, 2002
I LOVE THE WHITE STRIPES!

Yeah all that guy said was completely wrong. LOL? Jesus..

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

redeyes posted:

Yeah all that guy said was completely wrong. LOL? Jesus..

Other than that Optane is still stupid expensive, anyhow.

But, yeah, in case anyone was confused:
https://www.tomshardware.com/review...ata,4137-7.html


The 850 Pro is a SATA-based SSD, the SM951 is a AHCI-based M.2 SSD, and the SM951-NVMe is obviously a NVMe-based M.2 SSD. The NVMe drive is the clear winner at random 4k reads (and also everything else).

Klyith
Aug 3, 2007

GBS Pledge Week


DrDork posted:

Other than that Optane is still stupid expensive, anyhow.

And the minimal loading benefit in games part. Just all the details and reasons were wrong.

zer0spunk posted:

I'm retiring a 2012 256 830 drive that's been my boot drive for 7.5+ years to external drive duty. I figured I'd stick with samsung barring any crazy issues with the 860s, but everything I've seen on them seems solid.

Nah samsung is solid and the 860 is great. You're just paying extra for brand loyalty, when stuff like the WD Blue is just as solid.

Some Goon
Jan 6, 2013

A golden helix streaked skyward from the Helvault. A thunderous explosion shattered the silver monolith and Avacyn emerged, free from her prison at last.



DrDork posted:

Other than that Optane is still stupid expensive, anyhow.

But, yeah, in case anyone was confused:
https://www.tomshardware.com/review...ata,4137-7.html


The 850 Pro is a SATA-based SSD, the SM951 is a AHCI-based M.2 SSD, and the SM951-NVMe is obviously a NVMe-based M.2 SSD. The NVMe drive is the clear winner at random 4k reads (and also everything else).

They don't really pull apart until you get to higher queue depths, which you aren't likely to run into in consumer workloads. You're not going to see a huge improvement in a home system.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

ItBreathes posted:

They don't really pull apart until you get to higher queue depths, which you aren't likely to run into in consumer workloads. You're not going to see a huge improvement in a home system.

Yeah, if you're >32 queue depth as a normal consumer I have some questions for you. But the point is that NVMe certainly isn't slower than SATA: it's faster in literally every use case there is, even if it's sometimes not by a meaningful amount because utilization rates are too low to actually stress any portion of the storage subsystem.

Some Goon
Jan 6, 2013

A golden helix streaked skyward from the Helvault. A thunderous explosion shattered the silver monolith and Avacyn emerged, free from her prison at last.



DrDork posted:

Yeah, if you're >32 queue depth as a normal consumer I have some questions for you. But the point is that NVMe certainly isn't slower than SATA: it's faster in literally every use case there is, even if it's sometimes not by a meaningful amount because utilization rates are too low to actually stress any portion of the storage subsystem.

For sure, though re-reading BIG HEADLINE'S post he was talking about early NVMe drives specifically (which I don't know anything about) and does state that NVMe is ahead of SATA now.

doctorfrog
Mar 14, 2007

Great.



I built a PC in 2013 that's been so reliable that I haven't upgraded a single thing in it, or paid any attention to incremental hardware advances over the intervening years. It's running Windows 7 on a plain ol' hard drive.

So, hopefully quick question: can I just connect a SATAIII cable to this thing, install Windows 10, and just start rockin' or is there going to be something obvious (hardware-wise) that will bite me in the rear end?

This is the motherboard (ASRock B85M): https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/B85...nload&os=Win764

Also, is this the kinda thread where I can just pick something in the OP or should I watch the going conversation for a while? I was looking at this post on RPS and gat dang are SSDs cheap now. 1 TB should do fine for me.

doctorfrog fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Nov 20, 2019

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Yeah, you can pretty much just slap the new drive in, load up Win10, and away you go. You're probably gonna want to look at the WD Blue and Samsung 860 EVO, since both offer SATA3 versions, which is what you're gonna need. Sadly no new fancy NVMe drives for you, but that's ok--even a SATA3 hard drive will be an amazing upgrade from a 2013 spinning disk.

doctorfrog
Mar 14, 2007

Great.



^^
Thanks. Yeah, I figure anything I get is going to blaze; I can constrain my jealousy of new-new tech.

Klyith
Aug 3, 2007

GBS Pledge Week


doctorfrog posted:

So, hopefully quick question: can I just connect a SATAIII cable to this thing, install Windows 10, and just start rockin' or is there going to be something obvious (hardware-wise) that will bite me in the rear end?

The one general piece of advice is to disconnect old hard drive(s) before installing windows, if you aren't sure about the boot order. This prevents a situation where win10 installs itself to the SSD like you asked but puts the boot partition on a different HD.


doctorfrog posted:

Also, is this the kinda thread where I can just pick something in the OP or should I watch the going conversation for a while? I was looking at this post on RPS and gat dang are SSDs cheap now. 1 TB should do fine for me.

The OP has the very safest choices in terms of reputation & prior quality. A WD Blue drive is a great choice, as is the Crucial MX500.

If you are waiting for black friday to save some bucks, the Adata SU800 is probably worth putting on your radar. That's the favorite discount drive for the thread, with performance on par with the 860/Blue/MX500 class.

doctorfrog
Mar 14, 2007

Great.



Klyith posted:

The one general piece of advice is to disconnect old hard drive(s) before installing windows, if you aren't sure about the boot order. This prevents a situation where win10 installs itself to the SSD like you asked but puts the boot partition on a different HD.


The OP has the very safest choices in terms of reputation & prior quality. A WD Blue drive is a great choice, as is the Crucial MX500.

If you are waiting for black friday to save some bucks, the Adata SU800 is probably worth putting on your radar. That's the favorite discount drive for the thread, with performance on par with the 860/Blue/MX500 class.
Thanks. Yeah, good advice, I'm probably going to image my old drive with the free Macrium for old time's sake, and do the rest as you recommend.

Looking at the current money situation, I may have to wait until after Black Friday (other peoples' gifts take priority), but I get the sense that prices are going to continue to be reasonable looking forward, especially given the age of my system. If anything, it's the grand death of Windows 7 support lighting a fire under my behind: if I'm going to go through the pain of de-fanging and de-loving a new Microsoft system, I may as well do so on very fast, new storage.

doctorfrog fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Nov 20, 2019

Lambert
Apr 14, 2018
If you can read this, I'm posting in bad faith.


Fallen Rib

Also, when installing fresh, disable CSM/Legacy BIOS emulation in your BIOS. That way, Windows will install in UEFI mode (faster boot times). This will also prevent the bootloader from ending up on the wrong drive.

KingKapalone
Dec 20, 2005
1/16 Native American + 1/2 Hungarian = Totally Badass

Has their been a good BF deal yet? I saw the 1TB Intel 660p at Newegg for $87 I think.

Volguus
Mar 3, 2009


Lambert posted:

Also, when installing fresh, disable CSM/Legacy BIOS emulation in your BIOS. That way, Windows will install in UEFI mode (faster boot times). This will also prevent the bootloader from ending up on the wrong drive.

When I disable CSM (go full UEFI) on my motherboard, it will not turn on the monitors (they say no signal) until I boot into an OS. No idea what's the deal here, maybe old video card (970GTX), maybe it has trouble with 2 DisplayPort connected monitors, or maybe the MB firmware itself is lovely. My MB is MSI x299 raider.

Lambert
Apr 14, 2018
If you can read this, I'm posting in bad faith.


Fallen Rib

Volguus posted:

When I disable CSM (go full UEFI) on my motherboard, it will not turn on the monitors (they say no signal) until I boot into an OS. No idea what's the deal here, maybe old video card (970GTX), maybe it has trouble with 2 DisplayPort connected monitors, or maybe the MB firmware itself is lovely. My MB is MSI x299 raider.

Pretty weird, probably down to the motherboard. Maybe look for an option to manually select a video output for boot, maybe it's forced to the motherboard's video output for some reason? The GTX 970 should have no issue with UEFI boot, at least the GTX 980 Ti I used to have worked just fine. I had the same configuration, with two DisplayPort monitors connected.

mobby_6kl
Aug 9, 2009

"You are the best poster... do not let anyone say otherwise."


So my chinisium tablet/laptop has been acting a bit wonky recently, taking a long time to wake from sleep or login or launch apps. For a bit I dismissed it as it could've been low on RAM or installing updates or something, but it got reeeally bad to the point that it now won't actually boot in reasonable time at all. I got it started with a live linux usb without issues though, and the SSD is still there has all my crap. It does seem to be very slow to open anything however. I'll try to copy anything important of course.

So far I tried some smartctl tests which I don't really understand (except Hardware_ECC_Recovered seems bad, maybe? I don't know if that's a high number), anything else I could check?

code:
oot@kali:~# smartctl -t short -a /dev/sda3
smartctl 6.6 2017-11-05 r4594 [i686-linux-5.2.0-kali2-686-pae] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-17, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, [url]www.smartmontools.org[/url]

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Device Model:     FORESEE 128GB SSD
Serial Number:    G17411R005914
LU WWN Device Id: 0 000000 000000000
Firmware Version: O1229B
User Capacity:    128,035,676,160 bytes [128 GB]
Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
Rotation Rate:    Solid State Device
Form Factor:      M.2
Device is:        Not in smartctl database [for details use: -P showall]
ATA Version is:   ACS-2 (minor revision not indicated)
SATA Version is:  SATA 3.1, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)
Local Time is:    Fri Nov 22 11:30:33 2019 UTC
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled

=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED

General SMART Values:
Offline data collection status:  (0x00)	Offline data collection activity
					was never started.
					Auto Offline Data Collection: Disabled.
Self-test execution status:      (   0)	The previous self-test routine completed
					without error or no self-test has ever 
					been run.
Total time to complete Offline 
data collection: 		(    0) seconds.
Offline data collection
capabilities: 			 (0x11) SMART execute Offline immediate.
					No Auto Offline data collection support.
					Suspend Offline collection upon new
					command.
					No Offline surface scan supported.
					Self-test supported.
					No Conveyance Self-test supported.
					No Selective Self-test supported.
SMART capabilities:            (0x0002)	Does not save SMART data before
					entering power-saving mode.
					Supports SMART auto save timer.
Error logging capability:        (0x01)	Error logging supported.
					General Purpose Logging supported.
Short self-test routine 
recommended polling time: 	 (   2) minutes.
Extended self-test routine
recommended polling time: 	 (  10) minutes.

SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 1
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
  1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       0
  5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0002   100   100   050    Old_age   Always       -       57
  9 Power_On_Hours          0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       2681
 12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       2914
160 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       154
161 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       108
162 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       1
163 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       25
164 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       24252382
165 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       11756
166 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       11669
167 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       11653
168 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       3000
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       68
194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       44
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered  0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       18220526
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       1
241 Total_LBAs_Written      0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       224116
242 Total_LBAs_Read         0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       262234
245 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   100   100   050    Old_age   Offline      -       29575434

Warning! SMART ATA Error Log Structure error: invalid SMART checksum.
SMART Error Log Version: 1
Warning: ATA error count 0 inconsistent with error log pointer 1

ATA Error Count: 0
	CR = Command Register [HEX]
	FR = Features Register [HEX]
	SC = Sector Count Register [HEX]
	SN = Sector Number Register [HEX]
	CL = Cylinder Low Register [HEX]
	CH = Cylinder High Register [HEX]
	DH = Device/Head Register [HEX]
	DC = Device Command Register [HEX]
	ER = Error register [HEX]
	ST = Status register [HEX]
Powered_Up_Time is measured from power on, and printed as
DDd+hh:mm:SS.sss where DD=days, hh=hours, mm=minutes,
SS=sec, and sss=millisec. It "wraps" after 49.710 days.

Error 0 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 21930 hours (913 days + 18 hours)
  When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was in an unknown state.

  After command completion occurred, registers were:
  ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
  -- -- -- -- -- -- --
  01 00 ff 83 41 00 99

  Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
  CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC   Powered_Up_Time  Command/Feature_Name
  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --  ----------------  --------------------
  00 00 00 00 00 00 96 10      01:26:17.914  NOP [Abort queued commands]
  00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00      00:00:00.016  NOP [Abort queued commands]
  00 00 91 03 6f 3a 08 01      00:00:00.000  NOP [Abort queued commands]
  00 05 01 00 01 00 00 b4      18:38:29.525  NOP [Reserved subcommand] [OBS-ACS-2]
  00 00 38 00 00 00 99 00  48d+03:58:56.943  NOP [Abort queued commands]

Error -4 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 0 hours (0 days + 0 hours)
  When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle.

  After command completion occurred, registers were:
  ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
  -- -- -- -- -- -- --
  00 00 00 00 00 00 00

  Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
  CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC   Powered_Up_Time  Command/Feature_Name
  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --  ----------------  --------------------
  b0 d1 01 01 4f c2 00 08      00:00:00.000  SMART READ ATTRIBUTE THRESHOLDS [OBS-4]
  b0 d5 01 01 4f c2 00 08      00:00:00.000  SMART READ LOG
  60 08 08 d8 b4 63 40 08      00:00:00.000  READ FPDMA QUEUED
  b0 d5 01 00 4f c2 00 08      00:00:00.000  SMART READ LOG
  b0 da 00 00 4f c2 00 08      00:00:00.000  SMART RETURN STATUS

SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
No self-tests have been logged.  [To run self-tests, use: smartctl -t]

Selective Self-tests/Logging not supported

=== START OF OFFLINE IMMEDIATE AND SELF-TEST SECTION ===
Sending command: "Execute SMART Short self-test routine immediately in off-line mode".
Drive command "Execute SMART Short self-test routine immediately in off-line mode" successful.
Testing has begun.
Please wait 2 minutes for test to complete.
Test will complete after Fri Nov 22 11:32:37 2019
...
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
Warning! SMART Self-Test Log Structure error: invalid SMART checksum.
SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
# 1  Short offline       Completed without error       00%       121         -
E: It's really slow as gently caress
code:
root@kali:~# hdparm -t /dev/sda3

/dev/sda3:
 Timing buffered disk reads: 100 MB in  3.03 seconds =  32.96 MB/sec
root@kali:~# hdparm -T /dev/sda3

/dev/sda3:
 Timing cached reads:   12198 MB in  1.99 seconds = 6134.66 MB/sec

root@kali:/# time dd if=/media/root/Windows/BigassFile.rar of=/dev/null bs=8k
229511+1 records in
229511+1 records out
1880159746 bytes (1.9 GB, 1.8 GiB) copied, 1144.29 s, 1.6 MB/s

real	19m4.385s
user	0m0.858s
sys	0m3.141s

FWIW, it seems that I managed to unfuck it somehow. After a backup, I deleted some large photo and video files, ran chkdsk whick fixed a few records and if seems to work fine again now.

mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Nov 25, 2019

BeastOfExmoor
Aug 19, 2003

I will be gone, but not forever.


KingKapalone posted:

Has their been a good BF deal yet? I saw the 1TB Intel 660p at Newegg for $87 I think.


I haven't seen much. For whatever reason, perhaps that major power outage that killed some fabs in early summer, prices ticked up a bit for the last few months. I've noticed the deals returning to roughly the prices from May and June. Ex. Inland Premium 1TB NVMe for $105, etc.

I suspect we'll see some better deals next week and in December, but probably not much that wildly beats the previous lows from well known drives.

unknown
Nov 16, 2002
Ain't got no stinking title yet!


https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/25/hpe_ssd_32768/

https://support.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/pu...-a00092491en_us

quote:


SUPPORT COMMUNICATION - CUSTOMER BULLETIN
Document ID: a00092491en_us

Version: 1

Bulletin: HPE SAS Solid State Drives - Critical Firmware Upgrade Required for Certain HPE SAS Solid State Drive Models to Prevent Drive Failure at 32,768 Hours of Operation
NOTICE: The information in this document, including products and software versions, is current as of the Release Date. This document is subject to change without notice.
Release Date: 2019-11-19

Last Updated: 2019-11-22

DESCRIPTION
IMPORTANT: This HPD8 firmware is considered a critical fix and is required to address the issue detailed below. HPE strongly recommends immediate application of this critical fix. Neglecting to update to SSD Firmware Version HPD8 will result in drive failure and data loss at 32,768 hours of operation and require restoration of data from backup in non-fault tolerance, such as RAID 0 and in fault tolerance RAID mode if more drives fail than what is supported by the fault tolerance RAID mode logical drive. By disregarding this notification and not performing the recommended resolution, the customer accepts the risk of incurring future related errors.
HPE was notified by a Solid State Drive (SSD) manufacturer of a firmware defect affecting certain SAS SSD models (reference the table below) used in a number of HPE server and storage products (i.e., HPE ProLiant, Synergy, Apollo, JBOD D3xxx, D6xxx, D8xxx, MSA, StoreVirtual 4335 and StoreVirtual 3200 are affected. 3PAR, Nimble, Simplivity, XP and Primera are not affected.)

The issue affects SSDs with an HPE firmware version prior to HPD8 that results in SSD failure at 32,768 hours of operation (i.e., 3 years, 270 days 8 hours). After the SSD failure occurs, neither the SSD nor the data can be recovered. In addition, SSDs which were put into service at the same time will likely fail nearly simultaneously.

To determine total Power-on Hours via Smart Storage Administrator, refer to the link below:

redeyes
Sep 14, 2002
I LOVE THE WHITE STRIPES!

jesus..

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

God drat it, guys, why are you using 16b variables for that sort of thing?

repiv
Aug 13, 2009



College Slice

16 bit signed at that, just in case they needed to store negative hours operated

HalloKitty
Sep 30, 2005

Adjust the bass and let the Alpine blast


Well that was just stupid

Edit: oh, and thanks for the heads-up

HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Nov 26, 2019

Volguus
Mar 3, 2009


repiv posted:

16 bit signed at that, just in case they needed to store negative hours operated

Well, the common wisdom is that one should prefer to use signed integers if there are any operations made on them (such as incrementing). Of course, one should also use the appropriate size signed integer. Unsigned types are cool and fine on masks or in file formats that store the size of the file in the header or some other constants.

Being signed was not the problem here (would have bought another 3 years). 16 bit is the problem.

Geemer
Nov 4, 2010




Volguus posted:

Being signed was not the problem here (would have bought another 3 years). 16 bit is the problem.

Power on Hours being load bearing seems like more of a problem. I have a hard drive that actually rolled over its power on hours counter and just keeps on trucking (with only data I'm fine with losing at any time).
I know it's not a fair comparison for an SSD that likely needs to use power on hours for scheduling internal maintenance jobs or something, but for it to completely and totally gently caress up an SSD if some weird data happens?

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Volguus posted:

Being signed was not the problem here (would have bought another 3 years). 16 bit is the problem.

I would actually bet that it's both that are the problem: 16 bit obviously made it far too small to begin with and the #1 thing that should have never happened, but then presumably when it rolls over the boundary it wraps back to a negative number of hours (at least in some languages), and that negative fucks the hell out of some other bits of the firmware and panicks it. If they'd used unsigned it'd reset to 0 and possibly keep on trucking.

Volguus
Mar 3, 2009


DrDork posted:

If they'd used unsigned it'd reset to 0 and possibly keep on trucking.

Possibly being the key word here.

There's always a chance for code like this to exist:
code:
if(oldCounter > currentCounter)
{
    dieVeryPainfulDeath();
}

nielsm
Jun 1, 2009




Fallen Rib

Well maybe if you just leave it plugged in for another 3 years, 270 days, and 8 hours, it will resume operation?

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E


It can't be straight forward logic that makes it stop working. There has to be some sort of unhandled exception. But still, JFC

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Volguus posted:

Possibly being the key word here.

There's always a chance for code like this to exist:
code:
if(oldCounter > currentCounter)
{
    dieVeryPainfulDeath();
}

Indeed, it's very much language dependant. If it's coded in C/C++, overflowing a signed int gets you straight into undefined behavior, which is...not great for firmware.

Which makes me wonder what the language of choice for firmware even is these days.

ilkhan
Oct 7, 2004

IF I JUST LICK ENOUGH BOOT LEATHER, BIG DADDY TRUMP WILL SURELY LOVE ME

Schadenboner posted:

Yeah, I only picked one up because the 512 was cheap and I thought my burner laptop could do NVMe (it only does SATA ) so I have an extra one sitting around. Maybe I'll use it eventually?
I picked up a sabrent to add into my desktop as a storage drive to replace my 1tb spinner and go all solid state. Figured out after it arrived I didn't have a second m.2 slot. A pci-e adapter cost me $15 and now it just works.

BIG HEADLINE
Jun 13, 2006

Make your move...'cause mine's gonna be ugly.

Seems one reason Seagate waited so long to overcharge for an E12 drive is they were too busy "making it theirs": https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...a-510-1-tb-ssd/

Wouldn't advise using an ECFM firmware on one of these.

Binary Badger
Oct 11, 2005

Trolling Link for a decade




Current Phison E12 drives are shipping with ECFM 22.4, a jump from 12.3.

Phison seems to be playing their cards close to their chest because literally no updaters for generic 22.x drives seem to be out in the wild, unlike with 12.x.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BIG HEADLINE
Jun 13, 2006

Make your move...'cause mine's gonna be ugly.

Someone posited that the reason there might not be any 22.x updaters out in the wild is that there might be a slight hardware change on the E12 reference drives and attempting to update a 12.x to 22.x might brick them.

But Phison's not saying any which way, so .

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply