01-13-2012 01:54 PM
I spoke to our engineering team about this question. We would not recommend this update in the situation you are asking.
01-13-2012 02:34 PM
Thank you for the quick reply, I am dissapointed that the fix for our company is not in sight but thank you for helping others who have been suffering, even if the solution does not work for everyone.
We use SAS HBAs (non-raid) for most of our systems, I am assuming that the fix will not be coming within the next short while and that I should look at replacing the drives?
Can you share what issues are being seen on SAS systems or is it just due to a lack of regression testing? Oddly enough in our situation, using the drives as a L2ARC drive data corruption is of little consern, a drive going away without removing itself from the bus like the 5200 hour bug exibited did cause issues due to IO timeouts.
01-13-2012 02:36 PM - edited 01-13-2012 02:37 PM
I have updated my Crucial M4 64GB FW 009 to FW 0309 few minutes ago. There's no performance increase or decrease, hopefully the error regarding the 5000hours problem is solved.
Thanks Crucial for posting the firmware sooner then their original announcement.
There's some screen shots of my drive. The controler was a SATA II one, ICH9R, in AHCI mode.
I have installed the firmware beeing in AHCI mode, port 0. The firmware has been installed without an optical drive using the method presented here.
01-13-2012 02:49 PM
Thanks for the quick update Crucial.
My other questions have already been answered except how to back up.
Is the best method to backup is to use Microsoft Windows 7 imageing? Keep in mind I have two partitions plus the 101MB one on my desktop and the whole drive used on my laptop.
When I first installed my M4 128 drive on my desktop, I used the Crucial transfer kit (software and cable) from a HDD because MS image would not work. I have a laptop and desktop drives to update. I have an external drive I can use to backup
Thanks in advance.
01-13-2012 03:05 PM
Release Date: 01/13/2012
- Changes made in version 0002 (m4 can be updated to revision 0309 directly from either revision 0001, 0002, or 0009)
i don't get this. does it mean that changes made in revision 0009 are not implemented in this revision 0309?
should we expect performances to be back at 0002 level and lose the bost 0009 provided?
01-13-2012 03:10 PM - edited 01-13-2012 03:16 PM
well then i guess it's a typo in the release notes because the way it's worded that doesn't seem the case.
i'm sure you're right, but it would be great to have a confirmation from the fw team or at least some benchmarks from perple that already updated (like you probably alredy did).
EDIT: well, already seen benchmarks somewere else. performances seems to be improved if anything
01-13-2012 03:16 PM
Yeah, just a copy and paste fail from some previous release notes I assume.