5 ms·

Sorry, it was the 970 Evo Plus. Here are the exact model and date codes from the drives: Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10 WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0,

Sorry, it was the 970 Evo Plus. Here are the exact model and date codes from the drives: Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10 WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0, 04Sept2021

hughrr 5y ago
Thanks for confirming - appreciated!
willis936 5y ago
Which drives were tested/confirmed to lose data? Did a Samsung Pro drive have this behavior?
- xenadu02 5y ago
  These two drives never lost FLUSH'd writes in any test I ran.
  - willis936 5y ago
    What drives did you test?
    - fulafel 5y ago
      In the Twitter thread it's explained they don't want to name the vendors who failed the test ATM.
      - MageSlayer 5y ago
        Perhaps, it's the author does not want to name vendors which fail giving them time to contact him with some attractive suggestions. Or I am too suspicious? :)
      - willis936 5y ago
        I see they don't want a "thing", but that hardly seems to be a reason to not name names. Is there some special status of companies that the non-conformant status of their devices should be private? It turning into a "thing" sounds like a net win for consumers.
        dspillett 5y ago
        > I see they don't want a "thing", but that hardly seems to be a reason to not name names. I see you've never experienced the shit-storm of abusive messages sometimes received from fans when you say something bad about the products from a company they are unreasonably attached to. Or the rather aggressive stance some companies themselves take when something not complimentary is said. Or in the middle, paid shills (the company getting someone to pretend to be one of those overly attached people). That might be what is meant by "a thing" here.
        willis936 5y ago
        Everything you listed are external chilling factors. You would blame the person neutrally shining the flashlight for the obscene response of others? Simply identifying a list of tested drives should not cause fear for someone's wellbeing. Anything otherwise is a successful stifling of knowledge.
        dspillett 5y ago
        > You would blame the person neutrally shining the flashlight for the obscene response of others? Absolutely not, you seem to have misread me there. I'm saying I understand the bad results not being published to avoid the potential for the obscene response from others. Publishing the good results is enough of a public service. More than required, in fact. The test results could have been kept to themselves as nothing is owed to the rest of us.
ysleepy 5y ago
Were samsung and WD consistent in this or did you have drives from them that behaved differently?

Sorry, it was the 970 Evo Plus. Here are the exact model and date codes from the drives: Samsung 970 Evo Plus: MZ-V7S2T0, 2021.10 WD Red: WDS100T1R0C-68BDK0, 04Sept2021

hughrr 5y ago

Thanks for confirming - appreciated!

willis936 5y ago

Which drives were tested/confirmed to lose data? Did a Samsung Pro drive have this behavior?

xenadu02 5y ago
These two drives never lost FLUSH'd writes in any test I ran.
- willis936 5y ago
  What drives did you test?
  - fulafel 5y ago
    In the Twitter thread it's explained they don't want to name the vendors who failed the test ATM.
    - MageSlayer 5y ago
      Perhaps, it's the author does not want to name vendors which fail giving them time to contact him with some attractive suggestions. Or I am too suspicious? :)
    - willis936 5y ago
      I see they don't want a "thing", but that hardly seems to be a reason to not name names. Is there some special status of companies that the non-conformant status of their devices should be private? It turning into a "thing" sounds like a net win for consumers.
      - dspillett 5y ago
        > I see they don't want a "thing", but that hardly seems to be a reason to not name names. I see you've never experienced the shit-storm of abusive messages sometimes received from fans when you say something bad about the products from a company they are unreasonably attached to. Or the rather aggressive stance some companies themselves take when something not complimentary is said. Or in the middle, paid shills (the company getting someone to pretend to be one of those overly attached people). That might be what is meant by "a thing" here.
        willis936 5y ago
        Everything you listed are external chilling factors. You would blame the person neutrally shining the flashlight for the obscene response of others? Simply identifying a list of tested drives should not cause fear for someone's wellbeing. Anything otherwise is a successful stifling of knowledge.
        dspillett 5y ago
        > You would blame the person neutrally shining the flashlight for the obscene response of others? Absolutely not, you seem to have misread me there. I'm saying I understand the bad results not being published to avoid the potential for the obscene response from others. Publishing the good results is enough of a public service. More than required, in fact. The test results could have been kept to themselves as nothing is owed to the rest of us.

ysleepy 5y ago

Were samsung and WD consistent in this or did you have drives from them that behaved differently?