Whatever the counter is, the fact that it's 32,768 instead of 65,536 suggests they used a signed int for something that presumably starts at zero and increases monotonically... Avoiding just that mistake would've given them twice as much time - nearly 7.5 years - which seems like it'd be longer than these drives would typically last anyway.
Comments
Whatever the counter is, the fact that it's 32,768 instead of 65,536 suggests they used a signed int for something that presumably starts at zero and increases monotonically... Avoiding just that mistake would've given them twice as much time - nearly 7.5 years - which seems like it'd be longer than these drives would typically last anyway.
It would have avoided the problem in the first place because the SMART counter is allowed to roll over back to 0.
Maybe they're running on a 15-bit architecture where a signed int would be 16384?
/s