- First Name
- Jan 23, 2020
- Reaction score
- First Name
- 2013 Ford Fusion Energi, 2021 Mach-E First Edition (ordered)
IKR? It seriously never occurred to them that the memory chip could fill up? And to automatically delete older data if it got close?100% a basic embedded system design failure. For all the talk around Tesla being good at software and being modern and so on, this is an idiotic failure on their part of the highest order. The one thing they are supposedly really good at, they actually... aren't good at. I've made this point elsewhere on here though back when we first talked about these failures.
there was some early discussion - although I don't know if this was accurate - that it was worse than that, that they weren't even using proper write-leveling early on, so they were burning out the chip, which is much worse. (*)
This isn't simply about memory filling up.. this has to do with the fact that memory can only be written to and read from so many times before the chip fails.
It sounds like a write failure. Flash storage has a limited number of "writes" based on how the technology works. Each "write" is fractionally destructive to the chip. "Reads" are free... you can read from flash memory an unlimited number of times with no degradation ... it's "writes" that are the problem.
That's my sentiment too. If it were too much "car" and not enough "SUV/crossover", I'd be looking elsewhere. But after spending thousands of hours following the vehicle over the last 13 months, and then getting to sit in one at a Machetour stop, I'm quite confident in it now. I still wish the whole thing was about 3" taller (ground clearance, driver seat, and roof line), but it's close enough. It sits just a couple of inches lower than my Escape in all those dimension.I have no problems bailing on this car if it feels too much like I'm getting in a car and not a crossover.
At 56k this needs to feel like what I'm paying for.
As cheap as flash memory is, you'd think they'd just pick #2 (oversized storage).There are techniques to deal with these challenges to prolong the useful life (use of better flash memory, using over-sized storage, and ... planning for serviceability.)
This is why friends don't let friends buy Teslas. How did you let this happen?You have a big one coming soon for all model y models on the heat pump also. SIster goes to pick hers up Friday. They told her last week it's coming, Each model y will have to be fixed.
Definitely will show up in all models. I expect the MME to be similar. With respect to the MME, the buffer isn't all that large and all Li batteries are gong to degrade like this.Looks like the Model S-like battery degradation might persist in other models. I'm really grateful Ford gave the Mach-E a larger battery buffer.
another way to work around it is proper write-leveling in the flash controller - standard memory cards don't do this. standard SSDs (solid-state drives) on the other hand, even consumer SSDs, do, because a standard operating system setup reads and writes data all the damn time. Windows is worse than this than Linux and Unix, because of the Registry, but it's ultimately a problem for every OS that isn't configured for embedded use. The write-leveling can do tracking of flash cell state and/or do error detection to relocate writes when appropriate. To facilitate this, extra storage is set aside that isn't visible to the user of the storage that is used as the back-fill.This isn't simply about memory filling up.. this has to do with the fact that memory can only be written to and read from so many times before the chip fails.
This is a common misconception about flash memory. I had to do reseach on this very topic as a system I work on has the same flaw (sd cards). The only way I could work around this is storing multiple copies of the same data and calling the data randomly so I wasn't reading the same data all the time from the same sector.
If you left a machine running, It would fail after 3 months like clockwork.
aka write-leveling. but again this isn't a "modern flash" issue - it's a "targeted use case" scenario. If you're making a consumer SD card for use in cameras, they will never see enough writes to a particular cell over the life of the card to make it matter. If you're making a consumer SSD though as I said earlier it's there - it has to be. This is generally in the drive's controller logic that sits between the actual storage and the computer storage interface (SATA, NVMe, whatever).It sounds like a write failure. Flash storage has a limited number of "writes" based on how the technology works. Each "write" is fractionally destructive to the chip. "Reads" are free... you can read from flash memory an unlimited number of times with no degradation ... it's "writes" that are the problem.
Modern flash uses a memory-leveling technology because original memory would just write to the first free block of storage ... the first block on the device if it's an empty device. So as you erase files, the blocks near the start of the memory range get used over and over. The last block on the device will likely never be used ... unless every single last block is actually needed. SOO... these days "memory leveling" uses a technique to cause the devices to use all memory roughly an equal number of times.
There are techniques to deal with these challenges to prolong the useful life (use of better flash memory, using over-sized storage, and ... planning for serviceability.)
at this point it seems clear that they didn't know enough to know how to do the design properly for "permanent" storage. As for swapping the card in and out, we can only guess as to what the design constraints were here.As cheap as flash memory is, you'd think they'd just pick #2 (oversized storage).
Or even just include a card reader slot so a fresh card could be popped in every 2 years or something.
I think he is discussing automatic garage door opening due to proximity based rules...he turned that off and now must 'manually' use a menu choice embedded in the Tesla Screen of all Things. The taped remote solution was for a previous car that was without homelink, no?Yeah I didn’t understand that either.