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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
USB thumb drives.
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:46 +0100, Lucifer Morningstar SSDs are not used in servers due to their unreliability. They are MORE reliable than rotating rust disks. I they're not used in servers it's because they can't stand the higher amount of writing. And that depends on what you're doing with the server. If i made a server where I wanted fast disk access, but it wasn't written in huge quantities, I'd use SSDs. https://ark.intel.com/products/97164...#tab-blade-1-0 # Capacity 750 GB # Endurance Rating (Lifetime Writes) 41000 TBW # Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) 2 million hours # Enhanced Power Loss Data Protection Yes === "I'm an enterprise product" That drive can be written end to end, about 55000 times, if you believe the endurance rating. There are also flash based storage subsystems with internal RAID, such that if a chip fails, another (unused) chip can be put in place of it, and rebuilt using redundancy info in the chip array. I think this is called RAIN. https://www.micron.com/~/media/docum...f_ssd_rain.pdf It's possible there are also flash drives (think of a 4U form factor), where flash chips are arranged on cards, and can be replaced hot when they fail. Take the top off, plug in a new card (wait for rebuild). These are products you won't find on the web, and if you have to ask the price, you can't afford one. (It's similar to PCI Express, where there are all sorts of whizzy PCI Express technologies out there, which aren't advertised on the web. Those might be used in HPC environments.) Most of the advertising we see, is for the "rubbish stuff" :-) Paul |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
USB thumb drives.
On Tue, 22 May 2018 21:16:44 +0100, Paul wrote:
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote: At what age does the data become unreadable if the drive has not been powered up? Flash is generally quoted as holding charge on a floating gate for around 10 years. That means, if you're using SSDs for archival storage, they should be plugged in and re-written every five years, at a guess. For a given design, I don't know how to guess at that value, and the 10 year number is merely a "starting point, ball park number". If I had an SSD today, that was as old as the oldest hard drive in the room, chances are it would throw a CRC error or two, signifying the error correction couldn't fix the number of errors accumulated in a sector. In my experience, hard drives start making nasty noises and or getting bad sectors well before SSDs show any signs of problems. Back in the days of not much RAM, pagefiles wore the poor things out really quickly. It's a mirrored array, and the drives have different SMART data, even though they're identical and were installed together, so one should fail well before the other and prevent a problem. Well, I don't want to propose something stupid to you, and cause the mirror to break as a side effect. You have to be careful that any soft-raid methods don't "track" what you do to them, and then the next time you boot into the "working" configuration, the status is degraded and it costs you another rebuild. If you move one of those drives somewhere so you can read the SMART, you might upset the array status. I'd mess about if it was a machine with not much on it. I've got 4 PCs doing nothing but science research. An OS and one program to reinstall, no data. But the SSDs in question are my main PC with everything on it. When I built it 5 years ago to replace an older one, it took me weeks to get everything installed and setup the way I wanted it. If you don't have SMART visibility, and you insist on running a RAID 1 mirror, I would recommend to you that you mix drives from different manufacturers. Pair an Intel branded 512GB drive with a Samsung branded 512GB drive. That should de-correlate things enough, that there won't be any unfortunate accidents. I personally would not pair two identical Intel drives in a RAID 1 mirror, if you paid me :-) I'm be a "lucky enough guy" to have Windows Defender and Search Indexer keep writing to C: just after the first drive fails, until the second drive fails and I'm toasted. That's what would happen to me if I tried that. I tend to use identical drives in mirrors as I thought otherwise you just degrade it to the speed of the slowest one. I also only use Crucial SSDs for reliability. Anyway, the SMART I get from Speedfan indicates one of my SSDs will fail a long time before the other. I doubt they're identical enough to fail within a short time period. If I was that worried, maybe I'd use RAID 6. With mirrored drives *you still need backups*. Yip, I have what used to be USB3 external drives I swapped around for full backups. But I've now put one into each of the science computers so I can backup over 10Gbit network (into another building, so there's fire protection too). The drives are fast enough, USB3 is fast enough, but the ****ty interface in the external caddies was causing ridiculous bottlenecks and backups took days. If the 5V rail on your PSU overvolts, and burns both SSDs at the same time, "you got nuttin". I use quality PSUs, I've never known even a ****ty one to overvolt (undervolt, yes). Even the cheap ones tend to commit suicide without killing anything else. I've had a couple of cheap ones go bang in the past when I "overloaded" them, without frying anything else. "Overloaded" means daring to draw 500W from an 800W supply. If it's not a big brand name, don't expect more than 50% of the rated watts before an explosion. The decent Corsair ones are wonderful, they don't even power up their own fan until you draw a lot of current - virtually no heat from them at all. We do backups to protect against lightning and PSU failures and ransomware. The mirror idea, isn't "the Space Shuttle". It's not sufficient redundancy for disaster planning. It's *not* a substitute for backups. I know, I never said it was. But it's damn convenient. No reinstalling, no downtime, just shove in another drive with the PC still turned on. I've never had to restore much from backups when using a mirror or any other redundant array. Just files I accidentally deleted. And decent RAID controllers let you specify one or more "spare drives", so as soon as one in any of your mirrors fails, even if you're not at the machine, it will immediately copy the data onto that drive so you still have redundancy. I did once have a motherboard fail, but I just bought another board with a similar RAID controller on it and it understood the array. -- A worried father confronted his daughter one night. "I don't like that new boyfriend, he's rough and common and bloody stupid with it." "Oh no, Daddy," the daughter replied, "Fred's ever so clever, we've only been going out nine weeks and he's cured me of that illness I used to get once a month." |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
USB thumb drives.
On Tue, 22 May 2018 21:50:28 +0100, Paul wrote:
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote: On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:46 +0100, Lucifer Morningstar SSDs are not used in servers due to their unreliability. They are MORE reliable than rotating rust disks. I they're not used in servers it's because they can't stand the higher amount of writing. And that depends on what you're doing with the server. If i made a server where I wanted fast disk access, but it wasn't written in huge quantities, I'd use SSDs. https://ark.intel.com/products/97164...#tab-blade-1-0 # Capacity 750 GB # Endurance Rating (Lifetime Writes) 41000 TBW # Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) 2 million hours # Enhanced Power Loss Data Protection Yes === "I'm an enterprise product" That drive can be written end to end, about 55000 times, if you believe the endurance rating. Nice if you need that much reliability, but 10 times the price of a standard SSD! I think I'd prefer to buy 10 times as many normal SSDs for the same money and increase redundancy/speed/capacity. There are also flash based storage subsystems with internal RAID, such that if a chip fails, another (unused) chip can be put in place of it, and rebuilt using redundancy info in the chip array. I think this is called RAIN. https://www.micron.com/~/media/docum...f_ssd_rain.pdf Yes, Crucial SSDs now use this (they're the same company as Micron). It's possible there are also flash drives (think of a 4U form factor), where flash chips are arranged on cards, and can be replaced hot when they fail. Take the top off, plug in a new card (wait for rebuild). These are products you won't find on the web, and if you have to ask the price, you can't afford one. (It's similar to PCI Express, where there are all sorts of whizzy PCI Express technologies out there, which aren't advertised on the web. Those might be used in HPC environments.) Most of the advertising we see, is for the "rubbish stuff" :-) -- Keith was explaining to his sister how to jump start a car. "I explained about which cables to hook up where and in what order. She said, 'ok, I got all that, so now, which car do you start first?'" |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
USB thumb drives.
On Tue, 22 May 2018 16:16:44 -0400, Paul
wrote: Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote: At what age does the data become unreadable if the drive has not been powered up? Flash is generally quoted as holding charge on a floating gate for around 10 years. That means, if you're using SSDs for archival storage, they should be plugged in and re-written every five years, at a guess. For a given design, I don't know how to guess at that value, and the 10 year number is merely a "starting point, ball park number". I'd suggest that every 5 years, you buy a new, faster, AND cheaper newer flash, and move everything to it. You can consolidate while you're at it. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
USB thumb drives.
"Paul" wrote in message
news wasbit wrote: "Paul" wrote in message news Time for the testing tools. https://www.raymond.cc/blog/test-and...-with-h2testw/ ###################### Chip Genius Controller Vendor: Alcor Micro Controller Part-Number: AU6989SN-GTB/AU6998SN [F206] - F/W FA02 Flash ID code: ADDE14AB - Hynix H27QCG8D2F5R - 1CE/Single Channel [MLC-16K] - Total Capacity = 8GB Proving once again, that you really can get $13 worth of storage, by paying $13 :-) I take it, when they modified the declaration on the drive, the controller was limited to declaring 2TB and could not declare a larger number. Or they would have set it to an even higher number. So how does this magic trick work? The drive has been formatted, rewritten with 1242 (242 GB) videos & several instances of your big.bin files. Windows shows 411 GB used & 505 GB free space. Having transferred the drive from my desktop to a laptop running Linux Mint, (I'm a novice), so as to isolate it from the original file source, a notification pops up saying all the contents could not be displayed. Free space is 543 GB because several of the bin files aren't showing. All the video files played from a random selection. To my mind, it would seem there is much more than 8 GB available although I wouldn't trust the drive for anything important. -- Regards wasbit |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
USB thumb drives.
wasbit wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message news wasbit wrote: "Paul" wrote in message news Time for the testing tools. https://www.raymond.cc/blog/test-and...-with-h2testw/ ###################### Chip Genius Controller Vendor: Alcor Micro Controller Part-Number: AU6989SN-GTB/AU6998SN [F206] - F/W FA02 Flash ID code: ADDE14AB - Hynix H27QCG8D2F5R - 1CE/Single Channel [MLC-16K] - Total Capacity = 8GB Proving once again, that you really can get $13 worth of storage, by paying $13 :-) I take it, when they modified the declaration on the drive, the controller was limited to declaring 2TB and could not declare a larger number. Or they would have set it to an even higher number. So how does this magic trick work? The drive has been formatted, rewritten with 1242 (242 GB) videos & several instances of your big.bin files. Windows shows 411 GB used & 505 GB free space. Having transferred the drive from my desktop to a laptop running Linux Mint, (I'm a novice), so as to isolate it from the original file source, a notification pops up saying all the contents could not be displayed. Free space is 543 GB because several of the bin files aren't showing. All the video files played from a random selection. To my mind, it would seem there is much more than 8 GB available although I wouldn't trust the drive for anything important. You can disassemble the Flash stick and verify the chip part number, if you don't believe the output of the Chip Genius. That's one way to resolve any uncertainty. ******* The controller can have a couple of behaviors. 1) Chip designers never intended to support fraud. 2) Chip designers actively supported the sale of fraudulent sticks. In the first one, there is a single register, and by inflating the capacity to 2TB, the address "rolls over" when writes pass the 8GB point. Say, for example, you wrote 242GB of material to the stick. The address used at that point would be (242GB mod 8GB) and the stick would actually be writing blocks at the 2GB point. 242 divided by 8 goes 30 times, with 2 left over as a remainder. And that's what the "mod" tells you. If the design worked that way, then Windows should be quite upset, right after you write slightly more than 8GB of materials. If you wrote to 8GB+one_sector, then the NTFS file header would get overwritten by the file you were trying to transfer. Windows should be ****ed. The other behavior they could put in the design, is two registers. One register contains the "real" chip capacity of 8GB, while a second register is used as a value returned when Windows queries the available device size. By doing it this way, instead of implementing address rollover with the mod() function, they can instead "clip" the address. Then, any address greater than 8GB, simply results in the write operation being blocked. This ensures integrity for anything written below 8GB, but nothing written above 8GB comes back with anything other than zeros. This behavior requires the designers to be "in on the fraud concept" and using two registers for the express purpose of allowing "inflated" sticks to be sold. But no matter how you slice it, if the chip really is 8GB, it cannot hold more than 8GB of data. All it takes is someone making a test file from /dev/random, a file with high entropy, that will defeat any compression mechanisms and ensure an honest test result. And they'll immediately be able to tell it isn't a 2TB drive. Paul |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
USB thumb drives.
On Wed, 23 May 2018 06:24:51 -0400, Paul
wrote: wasbit wrote: "Paul" wrote in message news wasbit wrote: "Paul" wrote in message news Time for the testing tools. https://www.raymond.cc/blog/test-and...-with-h2testw/ ###################### Chip Genius Controller Vendor: Alcor Micro Controller Part-Number: AU6989SN-GTB/AU6998SN [F206] - F/W FA02 Flash ID code: ADDE14AB - Hynix H27QCG8D2F5R - 1CE/Single Channel [MLC-16K] - Total Capacity = 8GB Proving once again, that you really can get $13 worth of storage, by paying $13 :-) I take it, when they modified the declaration on the drive, the controller was limited to declaring 2TB and could not declare a larger number. Or they would have set it to an even higher number. So how does this magic trick work? The drive has been formatted, rewritten with 1242 (242 GB) videos & several instances of your big.bin files. Windows shows 411 GB used & 505 GB free space. Having transferred the drive from my desktop to a laptop running Linux Mint, (I'm a novice), so as to isolate it from the original file source, a notification pops up saying all the contents could not be displayed. Free space is 543 GB because several of the bin files aren't showing. All the video files played from a random selection. To my mind, it would seem there is much more than 8 GB available although I wouldn't trust the drive for anything important. You can disassemble the Flash stick and verify the chip part number, if you don't believe the output of the Chip Genius. That's one way to resolve any uncertainty. ******* The controller can have a couple of behaviors. 1) Chip designers never intended to support fraud. 2) Chip designers actively supported the sale of fraudulent sticks. In the first one, there is a single register, and by inflating the capacity to 2TB, the address "rolls over" when writes pass the 8GB point. Say, for example, you wrote 242GB of material to the stick. The address used at that point would be (242GB mod 8GB) and the stick would actually be writing blocks at the 2GB point. 242 divided by 8 goes 30 times, with 2 left over as a remainder. And that's what the "mod" tells you. If the design worked that way, then Windows should be quite upset, right after you write slightly more than 8GB of materials. If you wrote to 8GB+one_sector, then the NTFS file header would get overwritten by the file you were trying to transfer. Windows should be ****ed. The other behavior they could put in the design, is two registers. One register contains the "real" chip capacity of 8GB, while a second register is used as a value returned when Windows queries the available device size. By doing it this way, instead of implementing address rollover with the mod() function, they can instead "clip" the address. Then, any address greater than 8GB, simply results in the write operation being blocked. This ensures integrity for anything written below 8GB, but nothing written above 8GB comes back with anything other than zeros. This behavior requires the designers to be "in on the fraud concept" and using two registers for the express purpose of allowing "inflated" sticks to be sold. But no matter how you slice it, if the chip really is 8GB, it cannot hold more than 8GB of data. All it takes is someone making a test file from /dev/random, a file with high entropy, that will defeat any compression mechanisms and ensure an honest test result. And they'll immediately be able to tell it isn't a 2TB drive. I got caught in a scam where I bought what I thought was a 4 gig mp3 player. Turned out to be a 1 gig player that had been hacked to show 4 gig to windows. Once I tried to put more than 1 gig on it windows complained of write errors. Paul |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
USB thumb drives.
On Wed, 23 May 2018 10:16:19 +0100, "wasbit"
wrote: "Paul" wrote in message news wasbit wrote: "Paul" wrote in message news Time for the testing tools. https://www.raymond.cc/blog/test-and...-with-h2testw/ ###################### Chip Genius Controller Vendor: Alcor Micro Controller Part-Number: AU6989SN-GTB/AU6998SN [F206] - F/W FA02 Flash ID code: ADDE14AB - Hynix H27QCG8D2F5R - 1CE/Single Channel [MLC-16K] - Total Capacity = 8GB Proving once again, that you really can get $13 worth of storage, by paying $13 :-) I take it, when they modified the declaration on the drive, the controller was limited to declaring 2TB and could not declare a larger number. Or they would have set it to an even higher number. So how does this magic trick work? The drive has been formatted, rewritten with 1242 (242 GB) videos & several instances of your big.bin files. Windows shows 411 GB used & 505 GB free space. Having transferred the drive from my desktop to a laptop running Linux Mint, (I'm a novice), so as to isolate it from the original file source, a notification pops up saying all the contents could not be displayed. If that message was correct none of the files could be displayed yet you say some still showed. Free space is 543 GB because several of the bin files aren't showing. All the video files played from a random selection. So the message was some of the contents could not be displayed. To my mind, it would seem there is much more than 8 GB available although I wouldn't trust the drive for anything important. Google the device number or add more data until it gives write errors. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|