News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by jauntywundrkind on Friday December 27, 2024 @11:35PM (#42528611)
I can't get my Crucial P3+ to wake from sleep.

I'd like to dig in more but I haven't had this issue with any other SSD in this system. Pretty close to saying I'm done with Crucial.

Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by wtallis on Friday December 27, 2024 @11:50PM (#42528689)
Is this on a Linux system? NVMe power management has always been hit or miss for consumer SSDs under Linux because the SSD vendors don't write their firmware against the NVMe spec, they write it to work with the Microsoft Windows NVMe driver and any feature Windows doesn't use is liable to be broken. This applies to basically every SSD brand, by the way.
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by jauntywundrkind on Saturday December 28, 2024 @01:23AM (#42529034)
Yes, it's an NVMe.

Western Digital & OCZ nvme drives have both worked fine in this system, so I'm feeling a bit salty about this. Would like to try some Samsung drives at some point.

(Running Linux 6.11.7 atm.)

Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by NewJazz on Friday December 27, 2024 @11:40PM (#42528636)
I've had a similar experience with a crucial nvme drive, but a kernel update seems to have introduced a quirk-based fix. Not sure how much of a kludge that fix is, though.
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by wtallis on Friday December 27, 2024 @11:58PM (#42528721)
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by fulafel on Saturday December 28, 2024 @12:11AM (#42528768)
Interesting that there are also some anti-quirk special cases in the vendor combo function (second link above), so a certain platform is excepted from the quirk workaround:

   \*
   \* Exclude some Kingston NV1 and A2000 devices from
   \* NVME_QUIRK_SIMPLE_SUSPEND. Do a full suspend to save a
   \* lot fo energy with s2idle sleep on some TUXEDO platforms.
   \*/
  if (dmi_match(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "NS5X_NS7XAU") ||
      dmi_match(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "NS5x_7xAU") ||
      dmi_match(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "NS5x_7xPU") ||
      dmi_match(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "PH4PRX1_PH6PRX1"))
   return NVME_QUIRK_FORCE_NO_SIMPLE_SUSPEND;
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by wtallis on Saturday December 28, 2024 @12:21AM (#42528801)
I think some of those issues probably stem from the fact that there's not really any alignment between the NVMe spec and the PCIe spec with respect to power management capabilities. I've encountered drives that have implicit dependencies where certain NVMe power management features only work as intended when certain PCIe power management features are available, but there's no way for the drive to express those requirements to the host system, and no standard compliance test suite that will reveal the broken behavior that can occur in the wild.

Sometimes figuring out who to blame for misbehaving hardware requires custom kernel patches, a hardware protocol analyzer at the M.2 slot, and reverse-engineering the motherboard firmware. Most of the entries in the quirks tables are based on a lot of guess-work and inferences because the kernel developers don't have the resources to fully investigate and reproduce these kinds of issues (and the hardware vendors simply don't care about thoroughly ironing out these bugs). It really sucks when you have to look at power flow out of the laptop battery and try to figure out from that whether your SSD is pulling more power than it should.

Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by fulafel on Saturday December 28, 2024 @12:32AM (#42528844)
Wow. I guess this also explains some of the s2idle troubles, with S3 sleep there are the vendor-tested motherboard+peripheral combos that are shown to work with the power states attempted by suspend and any hw/fw bugs get troubleshot before they make it out of the vendors lab.
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by jandrese on Saturday December 28, 2024 @03:06AM (#42529412)
Oh yeah, and in some cases if the system attempts to go into S2 sleep it simply bricks the SSD forever. I lost a whole lab worth of drives once before I figured it out. The vendor was the opposite of helpful, refusing to acknowledge the problem and then wiping their hands of it and walking away. The only solution I've found requires a hardware modification of the drive, downloading a rip of the vendor's internal repos from a sketchy russian website, building a new firmware from scratch, and then flashing it with some custom hardware.
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by hulitu on Saturday December 28, 2024 @02:03AM (#42529175)
That would explain why, sometimes, my linux will not find the NVME SSD when booting. (MSI mobo with Kingston SSD).
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by chupasaurus on Saturday December 28, 2024 @10:02AM (#42531493)
Model or at least year of that SSD? Early on Kingston used faulty controllers that randomly fail to initiate and degrade with power cycles.
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by hulitu on Saturday December 28, 2024 @11:00AM (#42531914)
Since last year.
Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by doubled112 on Saturday December 28, 2024 @10:27AM (#42531706)
I have a pair of ASUS Vivobook laptops with Kingston NVMEs.

While running the factory install of Windows, those NVMEs would cause a BSOD every third or so boot. Clean install didn't help either, nor any driver or firmware update.

No Linux install has shown any signs of problems.

Re:PCIe trouble with 4TB Crucial T500 NVMe SSD for >1 power ... by Astronaut3315 on Saturday December 28, 2024 @10:33AM (#42531738)
I returned a Crucial P3+ after I discovered a massive performance degradation with Bitlocker. It was slower than spinning rust. Seems these drives have some unresolved firmware issues.