Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

cisco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 276 posts

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#61

Post by chrischen »

m0llusk wrote: post #35
pmoriarty wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing everyone could and should be doing is backups.

Two things: Test restores or you don't actually have backups. Just saying.

I got bit by this with iPhone backups. I did a phone trade in and followed the backup before trading in instructions. Problem is after the trade in the backup failed to restore due to an unknown error. The whole manual syncing and backing up with a cable workflow with Apple is super fickle and riddled with bugs.

Luckily I had Time Machine backups of my iOS backups and I managed to avoid losing too much data.

As a sidenote it seems like Apple has pretty much neglected their offline backup and syncing workflow to drive more people to just pay for iCloud storage. Half the time my iPhone takes hours just to get detected by the mac when plugged in.

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#62

Post by TaylorAlexander »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #29

Quoted post unavailable.

Having a statement like that shows people that they are open to suggestions on improvements. Since a lot of people are not so open to suggestions, it makes sense to me to include this language. They added a little X button so you can close it easily.

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#63

Post by tyingq »

userbinator wrote: post #4

40000 (or even 40960) seems an odd number to fail at. 64k or 32k would make the cause pretty obvious, but 40000 doesn't seem all that round in binary. Perhaps a 12-bit counter incrementing every 10h? This is puzzling. Of course, I am also entertaining the possibility that no one thought they would be in use for this long, which would certainly be evidence of planned obsolescence.

From a related issue with a different vendor:

"The fault fixed by the Dell EMC firmware concerns an Assert function which had a bad check to validate the value of a circular buffer’s index value. Instead of checking the maximum value as N, it checked for N-1. The fix corrects the assert check to use the maximum value as N."

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15673/dell-hpe-updates-for-40...

Why the MAX value would be in an circular buffer, or what was being stored in N-1? No idea.

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#64

Post by [deleted] »

justinsaccount wrote: post #6
userbinator wrote: post #4

40000 (or even 40960) seems an odd number to fail at. 64k or 32k would make the cause pretty obvious, but 40000 doesn't seem all that round in binary. Perhaps a 12-bit counter incrementing every 10h? This is puzzling. Of course, I am also entertaining the possibility that no one thought they would be in use for this long, which would certainly be evidence of planned obsolescence.

Someone pointed out on the other thread that it could be 2^57 nanoseconds: >>> 2**57/10**9/3600 40031.996687737745

[deleted]

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#65

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

yomkippur wrote: post #18

crap so its certainly HP laptops. so which laptops are safe from this?

This appears to be talking about Cisco enterprise drives; where do you see anything about HP laptops?

Edit: If it's a problem in Cisco's upstream vendor then it could affect others, but probably still just enterprise stuff.

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#66

Post by Pakdef »

lucb1e wrote: post #28

Check 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

I had to adapt a bit:

    sudo pacman -S gsmartcontrol
    sudo smartctl -a /dev/nvme0n1p4 | grep -e "Power On"
Im at only 2727 hours

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#67

Post by ikiris »

rajamaka wrote: post #42
ParetoOptimal wrote: post #31

Earlier 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.

I would love to see some examples of Cisco documentation that ever offended anyone.

Firepower is a good start, although for different reasons.

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#68

Post by salawat »

Somewhat unrelated, but I recently had a motherboard fried by power instability which has given me a healthy respect for the difference between spinning rust and SSD's.

My SSD's were scragged. my HDD's were just fine. I guess it's time to figure out how to get a realistic write-through cache setup going, because from now on, if it ain't on spinnin' rust it ain't hard enough yet.

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#69

Post by wutbrodo »

lucb1e wrote: post #28

Check 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

Just FYI for anyone for whom this didn't work by default: I needed to use the --all flag with smartctl (and install smartmontools if you don't have it).

Re: SSD will fail at 40k power-on hours (2021)

#70

Post by barry-cotter »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #62
DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #29

Quoted post unavailable.

Having a statement like that shows people that they are open to suggestions on improvements. Since a lot of people are not so open to suggestions, it makes sense to me to include this language. They added a little X button so you can close it easily.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN