Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style

Re:Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style by layer8 on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @12:43PM (#34807587)

Since there are no 17 GB modules (to my knowledge), they would have had to combine modules of different sizes. The f3 output in the article also states 16 GB for both drives. The old drive already only exposed 14.9 GB (GiB) of usable space. So it seems to me that is is only a quantitative change, not a qualitative one.

Phones are actually worse in that a mere OS update can decrease the amount of free space, which is something that presumably does not happen with USB drive firmware updates.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style by Dylan16807 on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @01:13PM (#34808108)

Are all the sizes really that even? Despite weird layer counts and stacking counts and typically doing 3 bits per cell?

Still, a 16GiB module would be 17 billion bytes. No need to combine different sizes. Unless you're saying a single module would have a decimal capacity?

If you take a 16GiB module and sell it as 16 billion bytes then that gives you 7% overprovisioning. Overprovisioning 10% would give you a 15.4 billion byte drive. If you want 16GiB then it's a quantitative change of how much you lose. But if you go by their promise of 16 billion bytes then it's a qualitative change that they broke the promise.

[ Parent | on HN ]