3 ms·
Whatever the counter is, the fact that it's 32,768 instead of 65,536 suggests they used a signed int for something that presumably starts at zero and increases
by _bxg1 7y ago
Whatever the counter is, the fact that it's 32,768 instead of 65,536 suggests they used a signed int for something that presumably starts at zero and increases monotonically... Avoiding just that mistake would've given them twice as much time - nearly 7.5 years - which seems like it'd be longer than these drives would typically last anyway.
- vortico 7y agoMaybe they're running on a 15-bit architecture where a signed int would be 16384? /s
- imtringued 7y agoIt would have avoided the problem in the first place because the SMART counter is allowed to roll over back to 0.