3 ms·

Rewriting the data each year hides the actual issue here. Have had plenty of "nice" flash drives rot to hell in 18+ months of dormancy

benterris 8mo ago
Does rewriting data help prevent bit rot? Does it mean powered drives can take advantage of it by periodically rewriting the same data over?
- vel0city 8mo ago
  It depends on how the flash modules are maintained and their quality, but yes having freshly written data will imply better data consistency on flash media. Flash media relies on recharging, which may or many not happen often enough.
- monster_truck 8mo ago
  It depends on the type of flash being used and the controller managing it. That he did not even identify the chips should inform you of the extent that these results can be trusted. All I can say for sure is that you should not trust any flash for long term storage, thumb drive or otherwise. In serious enough, high usage, high heat enviornments where everything working without problems or delay is part of what they are paying us to be responsible for, it is standard practice to clone fresh images to nvmes every time, with multiple spares that can be swapped out in minutes when they inevitably fail anyways.
angry_albatross 8mo ago
Did you miss that there are 10 different drives and so they have 10 different years of tests where they are testing a completely untouched drive?
- monster_truck 8mo ago
  I don't think you're reading the results properly.
  - thinkling 8mo ago
    I think they are reading it correctly. Year 1, they touched one drive and left 9 untouched. Year 2, they read one additional drive and left 8 untouched. Etc.
    - monster_truck 8mo ago
      Those drives aren't being read
    - Springtime 8mo ago
      Yes, it's also confirmed on the OP's blog linked in the post.
  - angry_albatross 8mo ago
    What do you think I am I reading incorrectly? The post seems pretty clear: "I filled 10 32-GB Kingston flash drives with pseudo-random data." "The years where I'll first touch a new drive (assuming no errors) are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 20, 27" And from the blog: "Q: You know you powered the drive by reading it, right? A: Yes, that’s why I wrote 10 drives to begin with. We want to see how something works if left unpowered for 1 year, 2 years, etc."

benterris 8mo ago

Does rewriting data help prevent bit rot? Does it mean powered drives can take advantage of it by periodically rewriting the same data over?

vel0city 8mo ago
It depends on how the flash modules are maintained and their quality, but yes having freshly written data will imply better data consistency on flash media. Flash media relies on recharging, which may or many not happen often enough.
monster_truck 8mo ago
It depends on the type of flash being used and the controller managing it. That he did not even identify the chips should inform you of the extent that these results can be trusted. All I can say for sure is that you should not trust any flash for long term storage, thumb drive or otherwise. In serious enough, high usage, high heat enviornments where everything working without problems or delay is part of what they are paying us to be responsible for, it is standard practice to clone fresh images to nvmes every time, with multiple spares that can be swapped out in minutes when they inevitably fail anyways.

angry_albatross 8mo ago

Did you miss that there are 10 different drives and so they have 10 different years of tests where they are testing a completely untouched drive?

monster_truck 8mo ago
I don't think you're reading the results properly.
- thinkling 8mo ago
  I think they are reading it correctly. Year 1, they touched one drive and left 9 untouched. Year 2, they read one additional drive and left 8 untouched. Etc.
  - monster_truck 8mo ago
    Those drives aren't being read
  - Springtime 8mo ago
    Yes, it's also confirmed on the OP's blog linked in the post.
- angry_albatross 8mo ago
  What do you think I am I reading incorrectly? The post seems pretty clear: "I filled 10 32-GB Kingston flash drives with pseudo-random data." "The years where I'll first touch a new drive (assuming no errors) are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 20, 27" And from the blog: "Q: You know you powered the drive by reading it, right? A: Yes, that’s why I wrote 10 drives to begin with. We want to see how something works if left unpowered for 1 year, 2 years, etc."