Comment by post_break
4 years ago
The problem is you can't trust a model number of SSD. They change controllers, chips, etc after the reviews are out and they can start skimping on components.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/adata-and-other-ssd-makers...
This needs to be cracked down on from a consumer protection lens. Like, any product revision that could potentially produce a different behavior must have a discernable revision number published as part of the model number.
>Like, any product revision that could potentially produce a different behavior must have a discernable revision number published as part of the model number.
AFAIK samsung does this, but it doesn't really help anyone except enthusiasts because the packaging still says "980 PRO" in big bold letters, and the actual model number is something indecipherable like "MZ-V8P1T0B/AM". If this was a law they might even change the model number randomly for CYA/malicious compliance reasons. eg. firmware updated? new model number. DRAM changed, but it's the same spec? new model number. changed the supplier for the SMD capacitors? new model number. PCB etchant changed? new model number.
"If this was a law they might even change the model number randomly for CYA/malicious compliance reasons. eg. firmware updated? new model number."
Judges are a bit smarter than linters, they can tell when someone is fucking with them
2 replies →
The model should be required to be “most prominently displayed.”
3 replies →
The PC laptop manufacturers have worked around this for decades by selling so many different short-lived model numbers that you can rarely find information about the specific models for sale at a given moment.
This does mitigate the benefit. But it still provides solid ground for a trustworthy manufacture to step in and break the trend.
Right now if a trustworthy manufacture kept the same hardware for an extended period of time they would not be noticed, and no one could easily tell. Because many manufacturers are swapping components with the same model number it is poisoning the well for everyone. If the law forced model number changes then you could see that there are 20 good reviews for this exact model number and all of the other drives only have reviews for different model numbers. All of a sudden that constant model number is a valuable differentiator for a careful consumer.
True. It’s the Gish Gallop of model numbering. Fortunately, it is the preserve of the crap brands. It’s sort of like seeing “in exchange for a free product, I wrote this honest and unbiased review”. Bam! Shitty product marker! Asus GL502V vs Asus GU762UV? Easy, neither. They’re clearly both shit or they wouldn’t try to hide in the herd.
3 replies →
Right.
And no switching the chipset to a different supplier requiring entirely different drivers between the XYZ1001 and the XYZ1001a, either.
If I ruled the world I'd do it via trademark law: if you don't follow my set of sensible rules, you don't get your trademarks enforced.
Years ago, that kind of behavior got Dell crossed off my list of suppliers I'd work with for clients. We had to setup 30+ machines of the exact same model number, and same order, and set of pallets -- yet there were at least 7 DIFFERENT random configurations of chips on the motherboards & video cards -- all requiring different versions of the drivers. This was before the days of auto-setup drivers. Absolute flaming nightmare. It was basically random - the different chipsets didn't even follow serial number groupings, it was just hunt around versions for every damn box on the network. Dell's driver resources & tech support even for VARs was worthless.
This wasn't the first incident, but after such a blatant set of quality control failures I'll never intentionally select or work with a Dell product again.
5 replies →
While I agree with the sentiment, even a firmware revision could cause a difference in behavior and it seems unreasonable to change the model number on every firmware release.
I don't think its unreasonable to just add a date next to the serial number that has when the firmware was released. It's 6 extra numbers
11 replies →
It seems unreasonable to me that there is unknown proprietary software running on my storage devices to begin with. This leads to insanity such as failure to report read errors or falsely reporting unwritten data as committed. This should be part of the operating system, not some obscure firmware hidden away in some chip.
It's complicated. Nowadays we have shortage of electronic components and it's difficult to know what will be not available the next month. So it's obvious that manufacturers have to make different variants of a product that can mount different components.
Nothing wrong with that, but give them different model numbers.
1 reply →
What if it's not a board revision, just a part change?
What if it wasn't at the manufacturer's discretion; the assembler just (knowingly or unknowingly) had some cheaper knock-off in?
usually the manufacturers are careful not to list official specs that these part swaps affect. all you get is a vague "up to" some b/sec or iops.
I don't want to live in a world where electronic components can't be commoditized because of fundamentally misinformed regulation.
There are alternatives to interchangeable parts, and none of them are good for consumers. And that is what you're talking about - the only reason for any part to supplant another in feature or performance or cost is if manufacturers can change them !
This practice is false advertising at a minimum, and possibly fraud. I'm shocked there hasn't been State AG or CFPB investigations and fines yet.
Edit: Being mad and making mistakes go hand in hand. FTC is the appropriate organization to go after these guys.
>or CFPB investigations and fines yet
>CFPB
"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. CFPB's jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors, and other financial companies operating in the United States. "
Right, presumably they meant to say the FTC[1].
1: https://www.usa.gov/stop-scams-frauds
1 reply →
It's definitely fraud. The only reason to hide the things they do is to mislead the customer as evidenced by previous cases of this that caused serious harm to consumers.
What do you expect? These companies are making toys for retail consumers. If you want devices that guarantee data integrity for life or death, or commercial applications, those exist, come with lengthy contracts, and cost 100-1000x more than the consumer grade stuff. Like I seriously have a hard time empathizing with someone who thinks they are entitled to anything other than a basic RMA if their $60 SSD loses data
There's a big difference in this depending on why the SSD lost the data. If it was fraudulently declaring a lack of write-back cache despite a lack of observed crash-consistency, due to not just innocent negligience in firmware development, that's far different from some genuine bug in the FTL messing up the data mapping.
Personally, I expect implementing specifications properly. That's it.
About "commercial applications", let's face it. Those "enterprise solutions" cost way higher not because they are 10-1000x times "better", but because they contain generous "bonuses" for senior stuff.
this is even worse in automotive ECUs. this shortage is only going to make things more difficult to test and forget about securing.