Following on from all the heat generated by on-line claims that LSI-SF totally screwed up TRIM in FW v.5.0.1, may I ask simple questions of Sandisk tech support?
If these claims are valid when are we Sandisk SSD victims going to receive a fully-operational, fully-tested, TRIM-enabled firmware update?
Will Sandisk’s firmware be based upon SF v.5.0.3 or must we be kept waiting further for v.5.0.4?
Or, worse still, even longer than that?
@nightcap wrote:
may I ask simple questions of Sandisk tech support?
Sure you can. But this is a user’s forum, not a SanDisk tech support forum.
Global Sandisk Tech Support Contact info can be found here.
Thanks, Mr Worm. Apparently, if one accepts what is posted on-line across various web-sites, Sandisk support has not yet answered these questions. Perhaps a real solution is (imminently) at hand? By posting here I was hoping someone may have heard/seen/felt/divined/deduced ahead of corporate schedule. Anyone out there who knows please?
BTW FYI way back in May 2012 yours truly flagged a potential TRIM issue right here on this forum: http://forums.sandisk.com/t5/SanDisk-Extreme-SSD/Extreme-SSD-120GB-No-TRIM-support-for-latest-Linux-150-wasted/td-p/269935 Soon after I received and installed my Sandisk Extreme SSD I posted that all seemed fine. Perhaps I was premature in my assessment? (The prevailing wisdom back then was that Intel had exhaustively eliminated SF firmware glitches over a 12-month testing process before confidently releasing SF-driven SSDs of their own, and therefore SF was a safe bet given Intel’s QC regime…)
I talked to support today and it looks like SanDisk is waiting on 5.0.4. In the tweektown article it says it should be released within a month. SanDisk support could not confirm when the FW will be released.
Thanks. That seems to confirm various rumours. Given likely rancour over FW glitches, it might be wise for Sandisk engineers not to rush their fix. Happy to wait. Upon reflection, this episode draws into question LSI-SF, Intel and various other SF-driven SSD suppliers who seem to have badly messed up…
The sooner the better for me I am sitting on new Drives that I need to install and ship to other Locations.
I cannot let Towers go with a Drive that is not functioning properly.
My Company is not going to fly me around to flash all these Drives and even though the Employees using them are Computer literate they are hardware capable. I could try to guide them by phone, but that would be risky, plus I read where there is chance
of DATA loss when flashing & that is not an acceptable Option.
Debating now whether to return the Drives and get a Marvell based controller Drive.
From reading here it seems Sandisk has their head in the Sand. The fact that there is no official response in this thread concerns me enough to send the Drives back.
I just realized this whole mess is a Class Action Lawyer’s Dream.
All Sandforce based Drive Manufactures with this faulty Firmware advertise that they have TRIM Support.
FALSE
All claim extensive Testing & Validation of Firmware & Device to perform as advertised.
FALSE
Any half witted Class Action Barrister could have a Slam Dunk since every Manufacturer is guilty of False Advertising???
You could be right about SF-driven SSD litigious frenzy. Legal remedies seem to be a creeping disease all over the world, but especially prevalent in USA. For example ongoing courtroom fiascos between Apple and Samsung. Who actually benefits from all these lawsuits? Only one answer - parasitic, pecunious lawyers. To be fair to Sandisk its SSD engineers were probably given assurances by LSI-SF. Did Sandisk individually test all new firmware on all its SSDs before making those TRIM guarantees? If so, Sandisk SSD division could be considered to be incompetent at best, deceptive at worst. However Sandisk are not alone. Virtually all SSD companies dealing with SF controllers have been found wanting over the last couple of years. OCZ, in particular (leading the SF-driven SSD charge), has had to face up to gruesome QC/firmware issues. Also Marvell controller firmware is not immune from technical issues. The 5000 hour Crucial M4 SSD sudden drive failure bug springs to mind. All in all these misadventures breed a cynical and reticent market, just at an opportune time for high-performance SSD storage to make real inroads.
Nighcap this whole thing reeks of impending Litigation.
It only takes one Shark Class Action Lawyer to get the scent that is emanating from this rotten Firmware, claimed testing
phantom validation and let not forget the false advertising by Manufacturers and off we go!!
How much Value does Grandma’s Picture you lost when flashing your Drive?
Priceless!!!
As an Attorney (specializing in Elder Care) and a Computer Enthusiast who owns 4 of these defective Drives I agree with the statements made by cvmmcg2 & nightcap.
If everything I am reading from them is correct and Sandisk and others have know defective devices in use and still selling them,
although not my specialty, but just my basic training in Business Law they are most certainly open to Litigation under # a number of State & Federal Statutes. For Sandisk the problem is greater since I read @ Tweaktown that they actually admitted that current Firmware was defective and sent them a SPECIALLY FLASHED DRIVE with 5.0.3 Firmware for testing.
With our Litigious Society some Class Action Specialist will get wind of this and will be assure a boat load of money.
We as Consumers will get pennies if anything!!
This is not my bag I do Wills, Estate & Long Term Care Planning,the Drive Makers in my Legal Option are defenseless and continuing to sell the defective product increase liability 5 fold.
It will be interesting and just a matter of time before you see a Complaint filed.
Knowing my Colleagues in this Field nothing gets past them and this is as cvmmcg2 states a Slam Dunk.
Personally all I want is a Device that performs as advertised and it does seem that Sandisk is dragging their feet.
Hi jjd419,
Glad to have some legal mind here even though it is not you specialty.
I did a little research on the Intel Sandy Bridge i5 i7 Chipset issue from 2011.
It seems that Intel was spared massive litigation by immediately pulling the product from the Marketplace and replacing @ their cost all defective Motherboards with defective chipsets.
The similarity to this issue was degeneration over time of the SATA Ports, we are dealing with degradation over time as well with non working TRIM.
I know that Intel’s problem was silicon not code, but does that make a difference in product liability?
My thoughts on this topic are:
The TRIM bug exists in the version 5 LSI/SF firmware, but all SF controller SSDs do not use that version, for example the Intel 520 series. All of Intel’s work on the earlier version of the FW is unrelated to the TRIM issue in the version 5 firmware. It is still unknown if Intel’s work on the other firmware was ever made available to other users of SF controllers.
The TRIM bug in the version 5 FW was caused by LSI/SF, and not the manufactures that use it. The manufactures that use it may not have access to the parts of the FW that deal with TRIM, or even the expertise to fix it, if they are even allowed to do so given the rules of the licensing agreement. IMO, many SSD manufactures that use the LSI/SF controllers actually do very little, if anything, to the FW, and may be allowed access to certain parts only.
From a legal point of view, LSI/SF delivered a defective product to companies like SanDisk, and from there to the consumer. While companies in the same situation as SanDisk may have responsibility to the consumer, LSI/SF is responsible to these companies, and is where the buck stops (or starts) as they say.
If you remember the Ford Pinto gas tank litigation. It was Ford being held responsible not the actual gas tank manufacturer.
Maybe jjd 419 can clarify this, but it seems to me that the Drive Manufacturers are just as responsible as Ford for not properly testing the product. Ford was held the Primary responsible Party due to lack of testing and how the tank was mounted, even though there were defects found in the actual gas tank.
Proud disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. However according to contract/consumer law, all Sandisk SSD end-users are covered by Sandisk warranty. That is, Sandisk product must be “fit for purpose” and be of 'merchantable quality". If it can be proven that this is not the case. then compensation might result. As to ‘grandma’s lost digital image’, lost data is not covered under such a statute, but compensation could be sought with a separate civil action. (Though lost data seems unlikely given anecdotal reports.) Ultimately what really intrigues me is that storage industry incompetence and/or deception could exist on such a grand scale, without effective checks and balances. Shades of Wall Street? 
According to the oft-quoted Tweaktown article, the revised Sandisk v.5.0.4 Extreme SSD firmware should be issued “within a month”. We must be close, surely. Also having read about revised Corsair v.5.0.3 firmware already issued for SSD’s such as their Force GS series (virtually identical components to Sandisk Extreme), there appear to be Corsair victims who will wait for v.5.0.4 for a variety of reasons. They feel an extended wait will be worth it.
It seems strange that a small Player in the SSD Business like Transcend release 5.0.4 last week and Big Bad Sandisk sits on their hands and lets Customers out to dry. The only problem I have I bought the Drives from Newegg & I cannot get my money back. They will only exchange the Drive and send me back another know defective Drive.
Sandisk get off your butt and release the Firmware. This Company has proven they do not care about selling known defective products to the Public and then does nothing about it. Talk about a Company without a conscience!!!
This type of thing is always frustrating when there is no confirmation about a pending update. I have bought plenty of electronics that needed a firmware update and simply never received it. Heck I once had a cell phone that would sometimes send text messages for the WRONG CONTACT and that never even got fixed. If Sandisk does not release firmware before my Amazon 30 day return period runs out, I will be sending my SSD back for a refund and buying something else. My drive is working OK for now, however I don’t want a drive that I need to baby or its performance will slowly depreciate and run into issues due to poor TRIM and garbage collection. Plus I do not want to have spent money on a poorly supported product.
The hard part of releasing a Sandforce update isn’t releasing it, it’s testing it to make sure they didn’t break something else in some other configuration. Given what a BSOD fest the last several years of Sandforce updates have been, I’m glad they’re not just releasing it. If Transcend wants to beta test it on their customers, good for them, but that’s what I’d call unconciable.
Sanforce released the new Firmware in mid August and Kingston, Corsair, Transcend & some others released it in the last couple weeks. They had plenty of time for Validation before release. To date not one complaint and only praise on the Kingston & Corsair Forums. Nobody is having Customers Beta Test it since most of these drives use only the sanforce Firmware.
Sandisk even flashed a Drive for Tweektown testing last month!
| Legal | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Forum Terms of Service |
|
| © Western Digital Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. is the seller of record and licensee in the Americas of SanDisk® products. |