DaveF81
Explorer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 56
As everyone knows, having a mirrored boot volume is a good thing. It helps with fault tolerance, allows the system to keep running even when something breaks. However, I came across an issue I didn't really expect. Turns out that not all Sandisk Cruzer Fit USB drives are build equally. This is bad because they are the most recommended drives for booting as the hardware failure rate is fairly low.
This is something I found out when one of my Cruzer drives started to degrade and needed replacement after a years worth of service. Two new drives I ordered from Amazon (Canada) were approximately 350MB smaller in terms of capacity. I didn't notice this at first, but when trying to re-silver, my FreeNAS box complained the target drive was too small. I began to cuss and rage in the IRC chat room. Nothing could be done of course, but hey, it was nice to vent my frustrations somewhere and I appreciate that people were rather nice and supportive about it (I know I can be annoying sometimes in the chat room!).
So, my old drive reported (Model SDCZ33-016G-A46):
da1: 15267MB (31266816 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 1946C)
Where as the new drive (Model SDCZ33-016G-B35):
da0: 14907MB (30529536 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 1900C)
Clearly with the model numbers there has been a hardware refresh. Now, the kicker here is that I cannot re-silver my boot volume to the new drive as it's smaller, forcing my hand to backup my configuration and re-install FreeNAS from scratch. Not a huge deal, it meant an hour or two of no file or media services for the family.
When I reached out to Sandisk for support to find out why I was missing 350MB, I was given some bull crap about the operating system taking some of that storage for itself. I can understand that with a filesystem on the drive, some space might be occupied or calculated different dependent on the file system, however when there is no data, partitions or file systems on the drive the capacity was still lower.
I guess Steve didn't know about the hardware refresh, wiping out 350MB. This type of story isn't typical of the manufacturing/engineering teams not informing their support staff. We've all been there, where the server or networking guy made a change which caused a support headache for the rest of the week.
Of course, I was assured the issue was going to be escalated.
That was three weeks ago.
So, this is just a heads up. Maybe I got unlucky, but I have to wonder who else has come across this issue, it'll be interesting to find out.
This is something I found out when one of my Cruzer drives started to degrade and needed replacement after a years worth of service. Two new drives I ordered from Amazon (Canada) were approximately 350MB smaller in terms of capacity. I didn't notice this at first, but when trying to re-silver, my FreeNAS box complained the target drive was too small. I began to cuss and rage in the IRC chat room. Nothing could be done of course, but hey, it was nice to vent my frustrations somewhere and I appreciate that people were rather nice and supportive about it (I know I can be annoying sometimes in the chat room!).
So, my old drive reported (Model SDCZ33-016G-A46):
da1: 15267MB (31266816 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 1946C)
Where as the new drive (Model SDCZ33-016G-B35):
da0: 14907MB (30529536 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 1900C)
Clearly with the model numbers there has been a hardware refresh. Now, the kicker here is that I cannot re-silver my boot volume to the new drive as it's smaller, forcing my hand to backup my configuration and re-install FreeNAS from scratch. Not a huge deal, it meant an hour or two of no file or media services for the family.
When I reached out to Sandisk for support to find out why I was missing 350MB, I was given some bull crap about the operating system taking some of that storage for itself. I can understand that with a filesystem on the drive, some space might be occupied or calculated different dependent on the file system, however when there is no data, partitions or file systems on the drive the capacity was still lower.
Steve K.: Dave, I understand the issue but it completely is the limitation with the operating system. It occupies some space from the Flash memory.
Steve K.: We manufacture the Flash memory against full capacity.
Dave: Even when completely formatted? erased? zero on it. not even a partition?
Steve K.: Dave, I have looked into the information and I would like to inform you that our Flash Drives provide a space of 14.9 GB on operating systems. I am not sure why are you getting nore then 14.9 GB of space
I guess Steve didn't know about the hardware refresh, wiping out 350MB. This type of story isn't typical of the manufacturing/engineering teams not informing their support staff. We've all been there, where the server or networking guy made a change which caused a support headache for the rest of the week.
Of course, I was assured the issue was going to be escalated.
Steve K.: I really apologize and surely will forward this case to have a look into the issue.
That was three weeks ago.
So, this is just a heads up. Maybe I got unlucky, but I have to wonder who else has come across this issue, it'll be interesting to find out.