Also…would modern journaling file systems protect against this sort of data loss?
They won't, since they rely on the drive to make sure their data was actually persisted.
I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
111–120 of 261 posts
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
imo hackernews should just automatically replace twitter.com with nitter.net even if just for readability without logging in's sake: https://nitter.net/xenadu02/status/1495693475584557056
We should just learn to ignore people still posting on Twitter (which is called something else now).
This is from last year.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is typical behaviour with ext4 on Linux, if the application doesn't do fsync/fdatasync to flush the data to disk. Depending on mount options, ext4fs does metadata journaling ensuring the FS itself is not borked, but not data journaling which would safeguard the file contents in event of unclean shutdown with pending writes in the caches. The same phenomenon is at play when people complain that their log…
The current default is data=ordered, which should prevent this problem if the hardware doesn't lie. The data doesn't go in the journal, but it has to be written before the journal is committed. There was a point where ext3 defaulted to data=writeback, which can definitely give you files full of null bytes. And data=journal exists but is overkill for this situation.
My only n=1 observation is that null values in logs occur on nvme, ssd and spinning rust. All ext4 with defaults. I do have the idea it occurs more on nvme drives though. But maybe my systems settings are just booked.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#114Does advertising a product as adhering to some standard, but secretly knowing that it doesn't 100%, count as e.g. fraud? I.e., is there any established case law on the matter? I'm thinking of this example, but also more generally USB devices, Bluetooth devices, etc.
> there any established case law on the matter
Always makes me laugh.
Anyways, not in the US where you're probably asking for, but yes, the vast majority of the developed word has that. It's called "false advertising", and exists at least in the EU, Australia, UK. You can't put a label on your product or advert that is false or misleading.
So if the box says this is a WiFi6E router, but it's actually only 5 because it's using the wrong components to save on costs, you can report them to the relevant authority and they'll be fined (and depending on the case and scenario you get compensation). The process is a harder bordering on the impossible if you bought from AliExpress from a random no name vendor though, but as long as the vendor or platform or store exists in the country with the sensible regulation you can report it.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's clear from the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38365934#38368867 Specifically: use the original title, then express your view as a top level comment. If people agree with it, the comment is naturally voted up.
Yes, and the OP did abide by HN guidelines. But GGP implied that the title was misleading; but it was the original title! So, what to do if the original title is misleading? Admittedly this is a twitter thread, so no "actual title" exists.
>So, what to do if the original title is misleading?
I'd suggest posting an alternative, non-misleading source instead, or if none exists, don't post at all.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and the OP did abide by HN guidelines. But GGP implied that the title was misleading; but it was the original title! So, what to do if the original title is misleading? Admittedly this is a twitter thread, so no "actual title" exists.
>So, what to do if the original title is misleading? I'd suggest posting an alternative, non-misleading source instead, or if none exists, don't post at all.
Then this very interesting piece would never never come to my attention. Which is surely the worst outcome.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
imo hackernews should just automatically replace twitter.com with nitter.net even if just for readability without logging in's sake: https://nitter.net/xenadu02/status/1495693475584557056
We should just learn to ignore people still posting on Twitter (which is called something else now).
I'm still posting on Twitter because the people I'm trying to reach are still there and the alternatives never materialised.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#118Twitter yuk, can somebody just post the names of the four tested drives and which passed/failed please?
imo hackernews should just automatically replace twitter.com with nitter.net even if just for readability without logging in's sake: https://nitter.net/xenadu02/status/1495693475584557056
And reddit links with old reddit.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#119Twitter yuk, can somebody just post the names of the four tested drives and which passed/failed please?
imo hackernews should just automatically replace twitter.com with nitter.net even if just for readability without logging in's sake: https://nitter.net/xenadu02/status/1495693475584557056
Is nitter.net still functional for you? The service was accessible earlier this year from my location but now it is all 403 Forbidden.
Re: I tested four NVMe SSDs from four vendors – half lose FLUSH'd data on power loss (2022)
#120Does advertising a product as adhering to some standard, but secretly knowing that it doesn't 100%, count as e.g. fraud? I.e., is there any established case law on the matter? I'm thinking of this example, but also more generally USB devices, Bluetooth devices, etc.
Hardware vendors are known to swap to cheaper lower performance hardware after reviews are out which in my eyes is fraud, whether or not the law agrees is a different story.
Please name the vendors that do this so I can avoid them.