On 20/05/2016 15:37, Michael Ionescu wrote: Interesting idea to make the USB drive optional. Based on literature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive#Failures https://askleo.com/can_a_usb_thumbdrive_wear_out/ - 10,000-100,000 http://cfgearblog.blogspot.co.il/2011/03/how-long-does-flash-drive-last_22.html - 10,000-1M Has anyone tested how many writes are going on to the ATLAS thumb drive? Perhaps with all the failures within a year of start, perhaps too many writes are taking place? Regards, Hank > >From both my own (short term) experience and from what's being > written on this list, I'm getting the impression that the USB drive > may be costing more than it's worth. > > I have in only about 3 months experienced multiple probe issues due to > USB drives and there have been multiple threads on this list which > suggest that I am far from alone. > > I will go so far as to suspect that a substantial number of > disconnected and abandoned probes have similar issues, but the hosters > may be unwilling or unable to spend the necessary time to investigate > and resolve them. > > If the main reason for the drive is to cache data during > unavailability of the command and control center, this may not be > worth the effort. > > I would suggest making the drive optional. That may mean fewer data > points from and/or fewer UDMs possible on those probes without a > functioning drive. But it may also mean a couple thousand probes more > connected and therefore available for measurements at all. > > I'm not saying that probes should not ask for their drives to be > fixed/replaced, but it should not be a requirement for the probe to > run. One might give an incentive to hosters to run their probes with > functioning drives by giving less credits for connected probes without > a drive. > > Any thoughts? > > Michael > -- > Sent from a mobile. Please excuse my brevity. // M: +49-163-6866568
