Quoted post unavailable.
It's a device to identify certain kinds of people who would have a problem with less loaded language without any loss in clarity.
SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
31–40 of 276 posts
Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
#32related topic - leaving SMART control tests ON for a (non-SSD) drive, apparently interferes with sleep; the drive will wake up to test itself. For some drives, I would prefer that not to happen and just stay quiet. Yet, testing for this behavior seems elusive -- querying the disk wakes it, and most linux disk tools seem unaware of sleep state. I just listen for the disk spinning, or notice a long pause before an operation.
Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
#33Check your power-on hours: $ sudo smartctl -a /dev/sda | grep -e Power_On_Hours -e ^ID ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 098 098 000 Old_age Always - 9743 Just looking at the raw value, it seems to be 9'743 hours in my case
Mine is above 53,000 hours ... time to check my backups!
Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you seriously saying that by default we should believe they intentionally planned to cause their customers to lose all of their data?
planned obsolescence is quite a thing...?
In some cases, but a product must fulfill its core purpose. If a SSD intentionally dumped data and self destructed at a set time, that would be disastrous for the brand. Same way a car doesn't adopt planned obsolescence by blowing up after 200k miles.
Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
#35It's been over two years since this was first identified... since this apparently affected many makes and models of SSDs, it would be nice to know if my laptop could be affected and if there's anything I could do about it.
One thing everyone could and should be doing is backups.
Two things: Test restores or you don't actually have backups. Just saying.
Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
#36Quoted post unavailable.
[deleted]
Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
#37Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a device to identify certain kinds of people who would have a problem with less loaded language without any loss in clarity.
Other than DEI administrators, trainers and people in positions with DEI in them, who is actually getting offended?
People that have to move their mouse a bit to hit the x button, apparently.
Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
#39Quoted post unavailable.
My reaction was "If you want to write some documentation with bias-free language, just write the documentation with bias-free language." Why the need for a long paragraph explaining "Look how great and sensitive we are!"
I understand, and agree with, the desire to use inclusive language, but so much of this has just devolved into performative nonsense.
Edit: Thought I'd leave my original statement above up, but after reading some of the other comments below I at least understand now the purpose of this notice. Basically, when it comes to Cisco's products, they previously used "master/slave" and "whitelist/blacklist" in their terminology, but no longer do. However, of course some older networking products still use that terminology in UI software, for example. So this notice is essentially saying "We got the memo about updated language, but if you see the terms master/slave or whitelist/blacklist in our docs, it's because it's essentially referencing something out of our control to fix, so don't yell at us."
Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)
#40Quoted post unavailable.
The docs may include "master/slave", and they don't want to get sued or bad PR, so this generic notice says "we don't like bad words but sometimes the industry uses bad words and that's unfortunate". If you click the Learn More link in the paragraph, you'll learn more.