|
Came across this bit of code in a review
int v = 2 >> 10;
Usually I just skim by stuff like this because I figure the programmer knows what they are doing. Then I went back and looked because it was specify a max size so I figured someone was being clever. And 'clever' doesn't mean good code.
Then I realized it definitely was not clever.
Always willing to question myself I started wondering if I was misreading it. Or if I had actually forgotten what the operator did. So I wrote code just to verify it.
If it hadn't been so weird and so wrong I wouldn't have spent that much time on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the author is just suffering of left-right confusion  Poor soul just wanted to write 2k.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Was the author made aware of the error. Perhaps the authors' finger missed the '<' key.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
maybe just v = 0x.....? all cute code needs to be bitch slapped out of noobs
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be a great way to detect if anyone stole their code.
The OP only says that he came across it 'in a review', so the code may not be open source. Even if open source, it may have been inserted to detect if anyone uses the code without giving the required credit to the source.
Or maybe it was the developer's little test to see how observant the reviewers are 
Map companies often add small, non-existing villages to their maps to detect theft. I guess similar things is common in other fields as well.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Big time.
St. Vincent - Big Time Nothing - YouTube[^]
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not fan of rap (this was rap like), but I liked it.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Feel the throwback to U2's Numb.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a sort of followup to a message[^] from Paul (@OriginalGriff) about 7 months ago. He'd posted that he'd bought some 4Tb drives from Amazon at a cheap price, supposedly refurbished, but they arrived 'as new' with warranty cards.
I'm wondering what his experience has been with them so far and how it matches with mine. I'd also be interested if anyone else bought some and what they've found.
In my case, I've previously been using Seagate IronWolf 4Tb drives (model ST4000VN008) in a 6 disk ZFS array (Raidz2, i.e. 2 out of the 6 are effectively parity). The disks were all around 33000 power on hours and one had "failed" according to the SMART data. So I initially bought 2 of these drives, which turn out to be HGST Ultrastar 7K4000 drives. I replaced 2 of the Seagates, bought 2 more HGST drives, replaced 2 more Seagates, bought a final 2 and complete the rebuild of the array.
Then 1 of the HGST drives reported failure. So I sent it back to Amazon for a refund and bought 2 more, intending to keep 1 as a spare. Shortly after that, another failed, so I sent that back for a refund and used up my spare.
Just recently, another drive has reported failure. I enquired via email about the warranty and was told that the company whose name is on the warranty card only sell to the US, so my drive isn't covered as it's a resale. So sent it back to Amazon for a refund and ordered an identical replacement, only now it's double the price.
This one had a manufacturing date on it of October 2016! So I've done a bit of searching and, as far as I can work out, these drives must have been manufactured between 2012 and 2019, but I can't find a way to work out exactly when. HGST was acquired by Western Digital in 2012, but they continued to make HGST drives for a few years.
So these are actually New Old Disks (Old New Disks?) and have presumably been sitting around unused for years - hopefully in reasonable conditions for storage!
I'm beginning to think this may have been false economy and I'd have done better sticking with newer Seagate drives despite the price!
modified yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
HGSTs will run forever. Unless physically abused are the Toyota of spinner drives.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! You don't mention purchase dates or failure dates but that seems like A LOT of failures over a short-ish duration!
I have a small 2 disk Synology NAS (running with Synology Hybrid RAID - essentially mirroring) with (2) Seagate ST4000VN000 (4TB) drives. They've been running without so much as a hiccup for a decade now. 
I guess I should consider myself lucky! 
|
|
|
|
|
The HGST drives were bought late October 2023 and early to mid November. The first failure was the first week of December, the second in January and the third about 2 weeks ago.
The Seagate drives were bought in March 2018 and the first failure was October 2023.
|
|
|
|
|
StarNamer@work wrote: Seagate
I'm trying hard - really hard - not to be a cynic and automatically conclude that this is your problem right there.
But, of the 50+ drives I've personally owned over the last few decades, all Seagates are currently dead. Zero exception. All others (WD, HGST, some Toshiba and other brands that are lesser-known as drive makers) have been retired - as in, still work, but now so small in terms of capacity they're not worth using anymore. And I have disproportionally fewer Seagate drives than other brands (based on my experience I'd be insane to keep giving them my money).
Backblaze has been compiling drive failure reports for years now. Their reports never do anything to convince me I'm wrong.
Also - I'd never buy a refurbished drive. Ask yourself: What are the reasons anyone would ever send a hard drive back?
|
|
|
|
|
I was about to say the same thing. I will never buy Seagate again. I had two 1TB drives from them whose drive controllers would just randomly stop working. For months at a time the drives would be invisible to my systems. Then sometimes, they'd decide to work. It wasn't a mechanical problem.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: I'm trying hard - really hard - not to be a cynic and automatically conclude that this is your problem right there.
Re-read his post. If I'm not mistaken he had a failure of 1 Seagate drive, then retired the remaining 5 in favor of HGST which in turn have failed spectacularly.
I had the same opinion towards Seagate as you for the 90s and 00s. I was a huge proponent of all things WD. Then experienced a string of failures on WD drives similar to our OP. I took a big chance trying Seagate in 2014 but they've worked perfectly for 10 years. A small sample I know but...
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's why I said I'm trying real hard not to get my prejudice to get into the way. But like I said, I cannot ignore the yearly Backblaze reports - where they put thousands of drives of all brands to real-world use.
If you've had nothing but good luck with Seagate - obviously I can't dismiss that and I can't tell you you're wrong.
From my position, I've had good luck with all the WDs I've been purchasing, so I'd have to have some really bad luck to get incentivized again to try another brand...
|
|
|
|
|
FYI:
The HGST drives were bought late October 2023 and early to mid November. The first failure was the first week of December, the second in January and the third about 2 weeks ago.
The Seagate drives were bought in March 2018 and the first failure was October 2023.
|
|
|
|
|
StarNamer@work wrote: The HGST drives were bought late October 2023 and early to mid November. The first failure was the first week of December, the second in January and the third about 2 weeks ago.
That's seriously bad. Do other systems also report them as dead? Have you tried other SATA ports?
Quite a few years ago I got a Sandybridge motherboard replaced (under warranty) because after a few months, SATA ports started disappearing. I believe there was an actual recall. I'm not suggesting the same thing might apply here, but it might be worth simply trying different ports. Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Do other systems also report them as dead?
None of the drives were actually completely dead. In fact, in each case, the parameter which caused them to be reported as "FAILED!" was the Spin_Retry_Count, with one of the drives having a raw value of 1441811 when I replaced it.
I suspect that, once spinning, the drives would probably continue to work fine for months (years?) but since they were being reported as having the potential to fail within 24 hours and were all within their return window, I felt it was better to replace them rather than risk a more serious failure.
|
|
|
|
|
StarNamer@work wrote: since they were being reported as having the potential to fail within 24 hours and were all within their return window, I felt it was better to replace them rather than risk a more serious failure.
For sure. I would've done the same.
|
|
|
|
|
The listing didn't actually say they were refurbished drives. That was just assumed from the price. Since they came with a card which indicated 5 year warranty (which turned out not to be valid outside the US) I concluded the were actually new and just old stock.
I think I've only ever bought something like 20+ drives over the years, but the only 2 I'd had trouble with before the HGSTs was one Seagate (out of about a dozen over the years) and one unbranded drive which came preinstalled in a microserver I bought. It was only 250Gb so I moved it out and put it in an external enclosure which probably shortened its life!
|
|
|
|
|
There is at least one site that uses massive numbers of hard drives (thousands at least) and have been doing so for years.
They collect failures stats for all of those at an individual basis and make the results public. They have been doing that for quite some time.
Lots of detail.
Fun random read. And probably more relevant it you really need to get some real world stats on failure rates.
|
|
|
|
|
It's BackBlaze (2023 stats)[^]
I have looked at it in the past, but as they've moved to larger enterprise drives it seems less relevant - I don't need 12Tb or larger drives for home use! And, if I look at the stats by manufacturer, it's difficult to determine if there's any consistency or if it's down to specific models.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
