21–30 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SK Hynix and Sabrent: https://x.com/xenadu02/status/1496290369184874497?s=20
Did what, for those of us without Twitter accounts? Did they Pass or Fail the flush test? (Saved or Lost data respectively?)
> SK Hynix Gold P31 2TB SHGP31-2000GM-2, FW 31060C20
> Sabrent Rocket 512 (Phison PH-SBT-RKT-303 controller, no version or date codes listed)
Looks like those two models failed.
Would like to note that these tweets are from Feb 22, 2022. This entire thread should have (2022) on it.
Well, yes, but which were those 2 out of 4 vendors ?
Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10: Pass
WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0, 04Sept2021: Pass
Crucial P2 250GB CT250P2SSD8, FW P2CR046: Pass
Samsung 980 250GB MZ-V8V250, 2021/11/07: Pass
WD Black SN750 1TB WDS100T1B0E, 09Jan2022: Pass
WD Green SN350 240GB WDS240G20C, 02Aug2021: Pass
SK Hynix Gold P31 2TB SHGP31-2000GM-2, FW 31060C20: Fail
Sabrent Rocket 512 (Phison PH-SBT-RKT-303 controller, no version or date codes listed): Fail
I wonder how much perf is on the table in various scenarios when we can give up needing to flush. If you know the drive has some resilience, say, 0.5s of time it can safely writeback during, maybe you can give up flushes (in some cases). How much faster is the app then?
It's be neat to see some low-cost improvements here. Obviously in most cases, just get an enterprise drive with supercapa or batteries onboard. But an ATX power rail that has extra resilience from the supply, or an add-in/pass-through 6-pin sata power supercap... that could be useful too.
Twitter yuk, can somebody just post the names of the four tested drives and which passed/failed please?
This is (2022). Wondering if anything changed since the original tests...
You're wondering if firmware writers lie to layers higher up in the stack? I think it's a 100% certainly that there's drive firmware that lies.
There's a reason why many vendors have compatibility lists, approved firmware versions, and even their "own" (rebranded from an OEM) drives that you have to buy if you want official support (and it's not entirely a money grab: a QA testing infrastructure does cost money).
I guess it's time for `fsync_but_really_actually_sync_it_please(2)` (and the lower level equivalents in SATA, NVMe etc.)?
This is not a technical problem that needs yet another SATA/SAS/etc command to be standardized. It's a 'social' problem that there's no real incentives for firmware writers to tell the truth 100% of the time.
The best you can hope for is if you buy a fancy-pants enterprise storage solution with compatibility lists and approved firmware versions.