[atlas] USB drive more harmful than helpful?

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