Slashdot Mirror


Spotify Is Writing Massive Amounts of Junk Data To Storage Drives (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: For almost five months -- possibly longer -- the Spotify music streaming app has been assaulting users' storage devices with enough data to potentially take years off their expected lifespans. Reports of tens or in some cases hundreds of gigabytes being written in an hour aren't uncommon, and occasionally the recorded amounts are measured in terabytes. The overload happens even when Spotify is idle and isn't storing any songs locally. The behavior poses an unnecessary burden on users' storage devices, particularly solid state drives, which come with a finite amount of write capacity. Continuously writing hundreds of gigabytes of needless data to a drive every day for months or years on end has the potential to cause an SSD to die years earlier than it otherwise would. And yet, Spotify apps for Windows, Mac, and Linux have engaged in this data assault since at least the middle of June, when multiple users reported the problem in the company's official support forum. Three Ars reporters who ran Spotify on Macs and PCs had no trouble reproducing the problem reported not only in the above-mentioned Spotify forum but also on Reddit, Hacker News, and elsewhere. Typically, the app wrote from 5 to 10 GB of data in less than an hour on Ars reporters' machines, even when the app was idle. Leaving Spotify running for periods longer than a day resulted in amounts as high as 700 GB. According to comments left in the Spotify forum in the past 24 hours, the bug has been fixed in version 1.0.42, which is in the process of being rolled out.

114 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Typical of today's programmer by rfengr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bandwidth, memory, clock cycles....don't matter. Use more shitty layers of abstraction over layers built into high level languages, then kick it out the door.

    1. Re:Typical of today's programmer by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wonder what this does to people's data plans and consumption of their monthly limits...

      So glad I just use local music files and don't stream. Write once, maybe again to add some more music, then just read many,,,

    2. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Today's programmers? It's been rampant since at least the 1990's...

    3. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you can't differentiate between bad programming and high-level programming with abstractions, you're part of the problem.

      PS lots of great software is written in higher level languages than you're probably capable of ever reading.

    4. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      lots of great software is written in higher level languages than you're probably capable of ever reading

      English isn't apparently among them.

    5. Re:Typical of today's programmer by jareth-0205 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bandwidth, memory, clock cycles....don't matter. Use more shitty layers of abstraction over layers built into high level languages, then kick it out the door.

      Well, what do you expect? Everyone expects client programmers to support more devices, more user for less money, cheaper / free apps. The last 3 places I've worked at had no QA department whatsoever.

      I know it's fashionable to shake the fist at 'lazy' programmers, but the fact is we expect more functionality from less dev time, requiring abstractions, libraries that aren't completely controlled or understood, testing skipped, etc. Programmers aren't the problem, relentless competition is.

    6. Re:Typical of today's programmer by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      What do layers of abstraction have to do with writing massive amounts of data to the storage device? It's not the layers that write the data, it's concrete code that does, irrelevant if it is behind, 0, 1 or n layers of abstraction.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    7. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, what do you expect? Everyone expects client programmers to support more devices, more user for less money, cheaper / free apps. The last 3 places I've worked at had no QA department whatsoever.

      I know it's fashionable to shake the fist at 'lazy' programmers, but the fact is we expect more functionality from less dev time, requiring abstractions, libraries that aren't completely controlled or understood, testing skipped, etc. Programmers aren't the problem, relentless competition is.

      I certainly expect better. Open source delivers quality - again and again. Any organization with an actual budget ought to do better. And please note that the competition is on quality, not on prettyness, and not on delivery date either.

      Also, this can't be a bug resulting from sloppy programming. Sloppy/quick programming results in apps that crash "occationally" and a lot of corner cases that aren't quite right. This MASSIVE writing is something else entirely. Fortunately, spotify is not necessary. In my case, it lost to the "relentless competition": Buying CDs and ripping them myself "just works". No io at all, except during playback or ripping. And then it is merely measured in kB/s. . .

    8. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's called Gates Law, because it's the opposite of Moore's Law.

      Every 18 months hardware became[1] twice as fast, and every 18 months software becomes[1] half as fast.

      [1] This trend has mostly stopped for hardware, but software is still becoming slower with each new version, something I can see at the office where everybody is complaining about how slow the PCs are running with Windows 10, where as mine is running Windows 7 just fine[2].

      [2] Well, fine for Windows anyway. Of course things don't happen instantly, like I'm used to on my home Linux machine.

    9. Re:Typical of today's programmer by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      Remember when the OS fit on a floppy and only did the most basic tasks rather than spying on the user and trying to be everything including the kitchen sink?

    10. Re: Typical of today's programmer by AcerbusNoir · · Score: 2

      It has very little to do with abstraction layers.

      It's poor implementation, lack of appropriate testing and, in a lot of cases the aforementioned is a result of unrealistic deadlines.

    11. Re:Typical of today's programmer by GotoGuy · · Score: 1

      As my brother put it, a sufficiently devoted developer can write shit code no matter what the hardware.

    12. Re:Typical of today's programmer by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      high level languages

      I agree. We need to fire all C programmers and go back to Assembly only. None of this high level abstraction stuff.

    13. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

      I remember when the "OS" was stored in ROM ICs, computers didn't even have floppy drives and could boot under one second.

    14. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I say we need to fire even assembly programmers and go back to only using the letters in your name.

    15. Re:Typical of today's programmer by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Good point...forgot to go back that far

    16. Re:Typical of today's programmer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I also remember when the OS ran on top of a Basic interpreter. I never experienced it, but I understand there were OSs written in Basic.

      Let's not even start with entering start points with toggle switches to get the system to boot.

      Now a real old timer will show up to regale us with stories of stringing his own core memory, getting a stitch wrong...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    17. Re:Typical of today's programmer by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "I remember when the "OS" was stored in ROM ICs, computers didn't even have floppy drives and could boot under one second"

      And accomplish what else? Compared to modern PCs, those were hopelessly archaic & difficult to use.
      But what we have no is hopelessly bloated, no argument there.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    18. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Open source can deliver quality, but take open source as a whole rather than by just cherry picking the successful projects and you'll find just as much crap as in closed source projects.

    19. Re:Typical of today's programmer by haruchai · · Score: 1

      high level languages

      I agree. We need to fire all C programmers and go back to Assembly only. None of this high level abstraction stuff.

      Assembly?? Microcode or nothing, bitches!!

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    20. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      OSes that ran on top of basic interpreters would have come AFTER the ROM IC loaded computers, way way after actually, as the early ROM IC loaded computers didn't have the capacity to run BASIC.

      But the rest is well described, the earliest computers used vacuum tubes and used punch cards for memory. Now there's some hacking you could accomplish!

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    21. Re:Typical of today's programmer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I see two unclear messages because GGP mashed his two thoughts into one sentence, reusing a fragment. I know of no languages that allow that trick, nor punctuation that could make intent clear.

      Also GGP appears to be a LISP snob. Functional anyhow, deserving of any shit flipped back his way.

      Getting lost mid sentence and hacking your way back sometimes happens when speaking. GGP had time to read before hitting submit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:Typical of today's programmer by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Copy con: myprogram.exe

      Then type in the headers, opcodes and operands with alt-numpad.

      Hex editors, bah.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    23. Re:Typical of today's programmer by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yep. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail.

      Good times.

      Setting IRQs with tiny little DIP switches.
      Swapping out the floppy drive with the spell checker.
      80 x 25 screens.
      Hercules Graphics cards! Whoooeeee!
      33K "high speed' modems.

      Indeed. Those days were the pinnacle of Western civilization.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    24. Re:Typical of today's programmer by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Very much so. And when you tell them that they are doing it wrong, they first do not believe you and then they start to cry. We have far too many coders and most of them really bad.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:Typical of today's programmer by harperska · · Score: 1

      If you are genuinely nostalgic for that era, you can still get a device with that level of complexity and computing power from companies like HP and Texas Instruments.

    26. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      When it's about the behaviour of an underlying library (as it was in this case) that's not properly understood by the programmers using it.

    27. Re:Typical of today's programmer by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      To be fair you can program using Java (for example) using as few layers of abstraction as you want. The problem is that the schools insist on teaching the exact opposite and in the companies there is a leveling down between those who can optimize and who can only use frameworks.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    28. Re:Typical of today's programmer by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're such a language expert yet you couldn't derive simple meaning in context from something that is far from understandable and written more clearly than much of the basic communication that goes on in the world today.

      You have an amazing understanding of gamma and sentence construction but what you lack is just general understanding.

    29. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Wonder what this does to people's data plans and consumption of their monthly limits...

      According to the reports people were sending in, the writes were being caused by the local database compacting itself over and over again. Probably didn't abuse anyone's data caps at all.

    30. Re:Typical of today's programmer by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Open source is not a magic panacea that fixes all ills. It requires dedicated programmers with alot of time, just like anything else. The many-eyes-make-all-bugs-shallow mantra has failed many times, have you followed the OpenSSL Heartbleed?

      If you don't think that this can happen easily then I guess you've not been in programming very long, or at all. Computers will quite happily do something repetitive and destructive in a loop forever, and in a way that is almost invisible to the programmer unless they're specifically looking for it. Just now (actually, literally today) I had OpenVPN eat up GB with a log file complaining about something wrong in the connection.

    31. Re:Typical of today's programmer by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Very much so. And when you tell them that they are doing it wrong, they first do not believe you and then they start to cry. We have far too many coders and most of them really bad.

      We don't have too many coders, we have an industry that is immature because it's far too hard to avoid making stupid mistakes. Other industries can handle below-average participants without collapsing (/causing catastrophic outages, security leaks, whatever). You or I might be awesome, but there can only ever be so many great programmers, half of all programmers are below average. And we need them too. All industries attempt to make the skill easier & safer, and that's a *good* thing. You can always just wish for better skills.

    32. Re:Typical of today's programmer by war4peace · · Score: 1

      So... after an infinite amount of time the database size would asymptotically trend towards zero?
      That's some awesome compacting, man!

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    33. Re:Typical of today's programmer by war4peace · · Score: 1

      But-but-but... open source delivers quality, again and again.
      So your example means nothing :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    34. Re:Typical of today's programmer by swillden · · Score: 1

      I certainly expect better. Open source delivers quality - again and again. Any organization with an actual budget ought to do better.

      This statement demonstrates deep misunderstanding of the open source process.

      Yes, successful open source projects do deliver high quality, and the result is free to user and other developers... but it is by no means effortless. In fact, open source projects require a lot of overhead that projects internal to a reasonably-efficient organization do not. Communication is slower and more difficult, individual developers tend to have less of the context and less focus, etc. Open source succeeds not because it is more efficient but because it enables massively more developer resources to be thrown at a problem.

      I guarantee that the amount of developer time invested in Linux is orders of magnitude greater than that invested in any comparable closed source kernel. In fact, I'd bet that more engineering hours have been put into the Linux kernel than have been put into the entire Windows operating system (kernel & userspace together). I can't prove that, it's just a guess, but it's a reasonable one.

      So organizations with an actual budget ought to do worse because that budget is a constraint, not an enabler, at least not compared to big open source projects that garner thousands of contributors. Looking again at Linux, Linux development is done primarily by engineers contributed by dozens of organizations with budgets, with lots of additional unpaid eyeballs contributing occasionally, and with many, many more organizations and individuals contributing to QA testing.

      Open source works because it removes most practical limits on the amount of effort that can be invested, not because it's more efficient. It's less efficient in terms of person-hours for a given output.

      Where open source wins efficiency-wise is in eliminating duplication of effort around the world. How many proprietary OS kernels were never written because Linux was available for free? We'll never know, but I'm sure it's a large number.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    35. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I routinely use the ATmega328P, it does a pretty similar job when used with the Arduino IDE.

    36. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The point is that there has been precious little functionality added since then to excuse the exponential software bloat; most of it is simply attributable to this incompetence and sense of entitlement that seems to have been the common thing for all software projects since then. Developers neither know how write efficient code, nor do they care because since you need or wish to run their application, clearly that means all the RAM and disk space you paid money for, is clearly theirs to waste.

      Just look at Windows, DOS+Win 3.1 wasn't pretty, but it did the job and had room to run useful applications in 4 MB of RAM and something like 40 MB disk space IIRC. Make it 32 bit, add PNP, networking and a three quarter broken service for system updates, an expanded system for making the OS shit itself - aka the registry - and suddenly getting the whole thing to clock in under 1GB RAM and 25 GB disk space is something of a feat. And that's before the applications. WTF.

    37. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

      The obvious counterpoint is that at least with clamscan, he could have commented out the OOM logging, or added exit(1) in its place, or performed some other mitigation to stop the bad behavior. Can't do that with Spotify or other closed source programs, you're just fucked until/unless the vendor releases an update.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    38. Re:Typical of today's programmer by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Data compaction is easy. Here's the entire NSA archive in compacted form: 1. It's a bit lossy, but with the right expansion program it'll work fine.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    39. Re:Typical of today's programmer by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And those unrealistic schedules and feature requests are often caused by the business plan, which needs to survive contact with the marketplace. If people would wait for and pay for better software, much of the problems would go away.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    40. Re:Typical of today's programmer by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      If you don't understand an API and what the functions do, it doesn't matter if the code you write has any abstraction. You're still probably going to screw up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Typical of today's programmer by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      And please note that the competition is on quality, not on prettyness, and not on delivery date either.

      Cheap, Fast, Good: Pick any two.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    42. Re:Typical of today's programmer by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I have 16GB and when clamscan automatically kicked on (Linux anti-virus scan)

      Why are you running a virus scanner on Linux?

      it ran out of memory and was logging out of memory errors as fast as the hard drive could take it. The same message over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Took me four hours to track it down because all your programs start crashing when they can't write their little temp files and it wasn't using a lot of CPU. I didn't want to restart because I had something open I needed to save.

      Ran out of memory, or ran out of storage?

      Running out of actual memory is fun, too--the handful of times it's happened to me on Linux, nothing actually crashes; it just stops. I could still switch between different open windows, although the screen started painting. Could still run terminal commands but trying to tab-complete would just spit out a bash error :) Trying to recall from memory how to call up a list of processes and kill them via the terminal (because no memory to open task manager) without autocomplete was fun the first time.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    43. Re:Typical of today's programmer by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      A magnetized needle and a steady hand.

      http://xkcd.com/378/

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    44. Re:Typical of today's programmer by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      An abstraction layer has nothing to do with an underlying library. The abstraction layer, or 2 or 3 above that underlying library still calls the same library function.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    45. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Hank+the+Lion · · Score: 1

      On my Atari ST,with it's OS in 192 kB of ROM and 2.5 MB of RAM (upgraded from the stock 1 MB by soldering in two 1 MB SIMMs), I could run Calamus Desktop Publishing, Finale music scoring, PureC C-compiler (very compact and fast code), Bugaboo debugger, Signum typesetting, and many, many more. All in a windowed desktop environment. It may not have been as refined as contemporary counterparts, but is was not at all as difficult to use as you indicate.

    46. Re:Typical of today's programmer by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Emacs FTW!!

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    47. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I also remember when the OS ran on top of a Basic interpreter. I never experienced it, but I understand there were OSs written in Basic.

      To clarify what others have said, the OS wasn't written in- nor ran under- BASIC. (#) Both the OS and the BASIC interpreter were themselves written in machine code.

      What *was* the case (AFAIK) is that on many 8-bit machines there wasn't such a clear-cut distinction between the functionality of the BASIC interpreter and that of the OS itself; or, at least, much of the OS functionality was accessed through the BASIC command line by default.

      For example, on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum or Commodore 64 (or most other machines of that era) one loaded a cassette-based game by typing the "LOAD" command at the BASIC prompt- even if it was a 100% machine code game.

      This isn't true of all 8-bit machines; e.g. on the Atari 800, BASIC was a separate (and optional) cartridge compared to the integrated OS ROM. Games were loaded via the OS boot functionality (many didn't even work with BASIC present or enabled). However, on machines such as the Sinclair ZX81, they appear to be closely entwined, to the extent that one can't completely separate the two.

      (#) Possible esoteric and obscure cases excepted; I'm sure *someone* has written some ersatz OS in BASIC somewhere..!

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    48. Re:Typical of today's programmer by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but not all at the same time, since TOS didn't support multitasking except via some limited hacks analogous to the PC's "Terminate and Stay Resident" utilities.

      Unlike, say, the Amiga with its full pre-emptive multitasking OS. Did I just reopen the ST vs. Amiga holy war? I think I did! ;-)

      Joking aside, while I know that the ST did later get "proper" multitasking via Mint/MultiTOS, it's interesting to note that while the Amiga hardware was more advanced in many respects, the OS itself- including the much-vaunted multitasking- doesn't appear to have relied upon any of that. What I'm saying is that since both were 68000-based machines, AFAICT there's no *technical* reason the Amiga OS couldn't have been run- in very similar forrm- on the ST hardware in very similar form from the beginning- multitasking et al.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    49. Re:Typical of today's programmer by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Skype does this too, sometimes it goes into a mode where, during a call, the hard drive light stays on solid throughout the entire call. Same problem with SSD wear. I deal with it by switching to Skype on my Android tablet. Not sure if the same problem exists there, since it doesn't have a HDD activity light.

    50. Re:Typical of today's programmer by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      That's the size of the smallest infinite set - unitary 1. If the bit exists its automatically 1.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    51. Re:Typical of today's programmer by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Its a sentence if it starts with a capital and ends with a full stop. Its called a one word sentence, and is usually used for emphasis. Emphasis.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    52. Re:Typical of today's programmer by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      If that's gamma radiation you're talking about there.. at least its not grammar.. or grandma .. or Gandalf.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    53. Re:Typical of today's programmer by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      #hahaonlyserious

      Actually I *am* an emacs user as well :)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    54. Re:Typical of today's programmer by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 1

      Who cares? Thanks to weak net neutrality we can just get our traffic exempt! Fuck the competition who actually have to write performant stuff!

    55. Re:Typical of today's programmer by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      That's a whole separate problem, that's only gonna get worse over the next 4 years....

  2. Seems a bit late ... by evanh · · Score: 1

    ... for highlighting the potential for damage as news, don't ya think?

  3. Re:distributed client? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nah, then you'd see an increased network usage. This is probably just Firefox's fsync bug repeated: in order to ensure data integrity, SQLite has a mode that fsyncs on commit. (After all, if the data isn't written to storage, it isn't really committed.) If you combine that with autocommit after every minor transaction, you get a ton of fsyncs and massive data usage.

  4. Re:Do not store songs locally by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Im not sure its a problem solved by that.

    I think the gist of it is that for every small change to the data they store on your device, they are re-writing the entirety of the dataset they are keeping. So for instance they are logging a record that says "didnt play music this minute" but are re-writing the entire multi-year log.

    I blame XML and other formats that are used for the stupid reason that "we already have XML routines so lets use it for everything"

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  5. Re:Do not store songs locally by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    This is a non issue on desktops, really.

    Correction: I think you meant to say this is a non-issue on desktops that are not using solid state drives.

  6. Re:SSD finite write capacity help by Zak3056 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why the hell would you put a pagefile in a ramdisk? "Yo dawg, I heard you love pages?"

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  7. Re:SSD finite write capacity helpIf by ledow · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're writing enough to pagefiles, you need more RAM anyway.

    If you're writing a lot to temporary areas, you need to stop doing so.

    That said, I'm on an SSD machine at the moment that has been running for 6 months, with absolutely no special treatment, imaged from a years-old working PC without changing anything, and it's written 1.5TB. 1TB of that was the initial imaging process.

    It's the main workhorse in an IT Office in a school, use for 10+ hours every single day for everything imaginable. Client machines rarely use much.

    It has a write-life of 100TB. If it dies, I just hit F12 and re-image cleanly.

    At current usage (not including the initial image), I count that as 1TB of write a year, which gives longer the expected lifetime of the PC itself, however far out I am.

    There's no need for special treatment, no need to use special SSD transfer software, no need to over-provision, or increase RAM cache or anything else. Just have a PC that isn't slogging itself to death, and slap an SSD in.

    Don't expect it to last forever, but you shouldn't need to adjust ANYTHING at all.

    And I've done this on all the staff work machines earlier this year - zero failures so far and it has made much more of a performance difference than doubling the amount of RAM. In fact, where machines had motherboards that were limited in RAM, we SSD'd and saw HUGE performance increases better than those clients whose RAM we doubled but are running on traditional hard disks.

    At home I have a 1TB EVO 850 and that's the same. Literally imaged byte-for-byte, and is stupendously fast and no need for any software changes whatsoever, and the write numbers are predicting 20+ years of life despite a similar 10+ hours a day of usage.

    Don't RELY on it never failing. But they are going to be in warranty (whether that's by number of years, or data written) for the life of your machine, under even heavy usage, unless you're doing something incredibly stupid (like use in NVR, RAID, or similar without buying a high-write-endurance model).

  8. Re:Do not store songs locally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the comments on Ars, it seems pretty clear that there is a bug in the app causing it to repeatedly compact the sqlite database it uses. I'm sure we all know that that is something which should be done only when actually needed, so that's clearly a bug, not inefficiency.

  9. Re:Addendum & small 'correction'... apk by lucm · · Score: 2

    Pagefiles I don't put on software ramdisk (had to clarify that), but on HDD instead

    So you put the things that benefits the most from fast i/o on your slowest storage device instead of your ssd? Why not put it on a floppy drive, or a mounted network share connected to a VPS hosted on the other side of the country if you like to slow things down?

    Or maybe you just love that spinnig hdd sound.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  10. Re: SSD finite write capacity help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Should I also move my HOSTS file to a ram disk?

  11. Re:SSD finite write capacity help by lucm · · Score: 1, Funny

    pagefile on a ramdisk is awesome because if you don't have enough ram all you have to do is either add ram to need less paging or add ram to increase the size of your ramdisk - you can't go wrong! It also saves a lot of expensive hard disk storage, especially when you put the computer to sleep.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  12. Persistance abstracted to far? by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Informative

    This sounds like some smart software architect to the abstraction of the persistance/storage layer of the Spotify stack too far whilst at the same time storing to much of miniscule datapoints in Spotifys objects. Because once abstracted properly, adding attributes to your objects and the entire stack is trivial.

    Think of it:
    If your stacks ORM neatly abstracts everything concerning persistance and on the backside syncs on neatly whenever it has the opportunity, all you need is app-side developers and software designers storing every little piece of data they can find and that changes evers millisecond and then you have your bandwidth/load disaster as described.

    If something like this is the case with Spotify, which I do strongly suspect, it is a good example that goes to show that you can take clean-room design too far. And that a haphazard duct-tape and chickenwire approach to product development can have significant advantages, as you build around unforseen roadblocks on a daily basis and only add the features really needed.

    I see an example of this every day, as I am currently doing WordPress development and building a WordPress pipeline for an agency. Large parts of the WP legacy architecture are an abysmally convoluted mess built by people who shouldn't have been let near a keyboard 15 years ago. But having a non-developer build a production capable demo of a website in WP is significantly faster than starting with an actual UX prototype, which quickly leads our team into real-world problems that we often haven't suspected. And suddenly a proper ORM and cleanroom design would cause hassle at one end or the other.

    My to eurocents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  13. FTFY by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Generally there is no reason to do that, but there are some poorly coded applications that will page memory to disk, even when they don't need to.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:FTFY by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And it can be simpler to put a pagefile in a ramdisk than to replace the application.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. Re:Do not store songs locally by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rust spinners wear out too. This can be a particular problem if it's constantly bringing the drive out of power-down.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  15. Spotify, why by lucm · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use Google Play Music. Not only can it cache songs, you can also upload your own collection. And now that Google has acquired and integrated Songza, their playlists are awesome.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Spotify, why by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      Google won't allow me to use the family plan with my custom domain, thanks for rubbing it in.

    2. Re:Spotify, why by swillden · · Score: 1

      Google won't allow me to use the family plan with my custom domain, thanks for rubbing it in.

      I finally just had to have everyone in the family get a gmail.com account and use the family plan on that. It's a minor annoyance on laptop/desktop, because you have to have a separate browser profile logged into the gmail account you don't use for anything else. It's not a problem at all on Android, which supports multiple Google accounts very cleanly, and I imagine it's fine on iOS because iOS has no notion of Google accounts device-wide, so you'd just log the Google Music app into the gmail account.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Spotify, why by swillden · · Score: 1

      Don't they charge for playing random music that you didnt upload yourself? At least spotify has a free tier.

      Google's free tier is called YouTube :P

      (Of course if you pay, YouTube gets better)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Spotify, why by lucm · · Score: 1

      there's a free tier also on Google Play Music but it's just in the USA and Canada. There's no audio ads but there's a limit on how many skips you can do per hour. It's similar to the Pandora free tier.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re:Spotify, why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I also use Google Music and like it, but I think their software quality is still quite bad.
        - It's glitchy on first load, repeatedly force-scrolling to the top of the playlist.
        - It's glitchy when the Internet connection is bad, sometimes spazzily cycling through songs because of the rule, "if you can't load a song, skip it and play the next one."
        - It's lost all of my thumbs-ups.
        - It doesn't have gapless playback. It doesn't do volume normalization.
        - It's infected by screen-wasting tablet-first fischer price giant helvetica font disease. In the 90s you could keep music player open in a small corner because pixels were used efficiently, instead of taking over screens with wizards to guide the user to the desired action.
        - It's stagnant. It launched a long time ago and has not grown features. With all their talk of G+ being a "social spine," why u no have my personal pet feature, which is "party jukebox mode"?
        - The youtube integration sucks. Clicking on a Youtube song suspends Google Music, including mid-song. Then it's like a web 2.0 iframe. Even if you pay for youtube red, you can't mix Youtube and Google Music songs in a single playlist, and there are some songs only available on youtube. Downloading with youtube_dl and then uploading to Google Music is a bit ridiculous and would deprive the Youtube artist of their cut of my Red subscription, which they ought to get.

      I would suggest it over spotify just because it plays in an ordinary web browser, and because it includes Youtube Red for the same price, but that is just blathering on about your "plan" and your "minutes." The underlying issue of unnecessary complexity leading to terrible software quality is the same everywhere.

  16. Re:Do not store songs locally by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

    Problem solved.

    This is a non issue on desktops, really.

    It takes a pretty small worldview to not be able to imagine people on limited bandwidth / unreliable internet connections.

  17. Re:Do not store songs locally by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Funny

    I blame XML and other formats that are used for the stupid reason that "we already have XML routines so lets use it for everything"

    XML is like violence - if it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't using enough of it.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  18. Re:Do not store songs locally by Holi · · Score: 2

    This isn't a bandwidth issue, nothing is being downloaded, It takes a pretty dense worldview not to read the article you are posting on.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  19. Re:Read CLOSER (mine's on "SSD")... apk by Holi · · Score: 1

    Sata 1?

    Wouldn't you be better served with something that isn't bottle necked by it's old connection?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  20. has this been going on for years? by aisaac · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a possibly related complaint from almost three years ago.

  21. Re:Do not store songs locally by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you're using XML to solve a problem, you actually have two problems.

    --
    That is all.
  22. Re:Do not store songs locally by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    A lot depends on the settings. Some WD drives were too "lazy" so they were constantly parking/unparking. Google wdidle3.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. Re:Do not store songs locally by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    That's the joke.

  24. Browsers are doing it too by cjmnews · · Score: 2

    If you leave browsers up all all the time, they have the same problem. Firefox and Chrome. https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-580....

    --
    You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
  25. Re: Do not store songs locally by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

    Wait, there's articles now?

  26. Re:SSD finite write capacity help by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    It also helps when you're rebooting, loading data from RAM is a lot faster than loading from a hard drive or even a SSD.

  27. Re:Do not store songs locally by Striek · · Score: 2

    You must be new here

    (notices UID) err, now I'm just confused...

    --
    "Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
  28. Re:distributed client? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    So this would mostly be small-writes for something which is essentially metadata? Talk about these people not even having a faint clue what they are doing. With the write-amplification you get in an SSD for small writes, this can probably kill a modern SSD in a week or less.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  29. Re:Do not store songs locally by gweihir · · Score: 1

    That would only be a problem on laptops. Desktop drives spin-down far less often, if at all. (Mine do not. No reason for them to.)

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  30. not fixed yet by kcwebmonkey · · Score: 1

    users in that thread are reporting that even with the new version the issue persists... "I do have 1.0.42 installed. Still writing stupid data. "

  31. disk usage consideration by yes-but-no · · Score: 2

    Seems developers don't consider to optimize disk I/O. Recently I saw a live event streamed using firefox (from a not so great website, i guess it uses flash) and it kept my disk 100% all the time. Why should a streaming service write all those video data into disk, can't it just cache in RAM n display n forget the bits?

    Such unnecessary disk i/o wears my disk down, increases power use (if I'm on say battery on my laptop) and of course creates a kind of internal DoS as it hogs the disk i/o and rest of processes can't get disk i/o or get delayed -- resulting in a sluggish OS response even to say some file explorers. ie a well behaved app/software should not hog any shared piece of hardware/resource (like disk-io) leading to system instability.

    Apps should be benchmarked not only on their memory foot print or CPU usage (like algorithm/big(Oh) s) but also on their external data traffic usage like disk/network i/o.

    I regularly watch my disk i/o usage by processes and get rid of any if I suspect they are hitting it unnecessarily hard.

    1. Re:disk usage consideration by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Which means that developers often don't bother to see what happens on a slower machine with the user having limited privileges.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. Re:Do not store songs locally by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

    I once tried to use a regex to parse XML and got caught in an infinite recursion of problems.

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  33. Re:Typically I don't (see addendum link inside) by IRGlover · · Score: 1

    can only post 5x a day or so typically...)

    for which we all thank the heavenly host!

  34. So it's a bug? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Spotify Is Writing Massive Amounts of Junk Data To Storage Drives

    Or are they talking about the music files?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  35. Re:Do not store songs locally by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Mine do. Most energy efficient or otherwise green drives spin down very frequently. Not burning through 6w continuously spinning something that isn't doing anything constructive is a pretty good reason to.

  36. Re: SSD finite write capacity help by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    If it's an APK HOSTS file I would suggest a ramdisk is the perfect place for it. Don't forget to reboot after installing it. Even if software doesn't ask you to it's always a good idea to reboot a windows machine after installing software.

  37. Warranty for software is needed by postmortem · · Score: 1

    That will teach 'em. It is absurd what programmers can do and get away with it, simply because you click on "I agree" on EULA starting with "No warranty"

    Yes, it is going to be expensive, but software is getting worse.

  38. Chrome and Vivaldi also do this, possibly ext. by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Chrome and Vivaldi also does this, possibly due to some extension I have (Adblock Plus and BankID mostly.)

    Three times at-least they have written away 1 TB of data thanks to messing with swap I guess.

    I wish there was some information when the load got high / lots of data was written. Need some program for that. (Samsung EVO 850.)

  39. Re:Do not store songs locally by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I remember XML in one application I worked on, things like <AVeryVeryLongFieldNameThatTakesALotOfCharacters>A</AVeryVeryLongFieldNameThatTakesALotOfCharacters> on a slow and flaky connection.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  40. hm by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    Nobody has mentioned the temp fix yet so

    On OS X, Open /Applications/Spotify.app/Contents/MacOS/Spotify in a hex editor.
    Search for "VACUUM;" Replace with "xxxxxx;"

    Once you apply that fix you can manually vacuum with

    sqlite3 mercury.db vacuum;

    "~/Library/Application Support/Spotify/PersistentCache/mercury.db"
    download sqlite3 from https://sqlite.org/download.ht...

  41. Re:Read CLOSER (mine's on "SSD")... apk by lucm · · Score: 1

    Pagefiles I don't put on software ramdisk (had to clarify that), but on HDD instead

    I place my pagefile o a "True SSD" as I call it based on DDR Ram

    Dude you should pick one version and stick with it. Or let one of the voices win.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  42. Re:Do not store songs locally by gweihir · · Score: 1

    You seem to have no idea how much power even an idle PC consumes. A 6W change is typically below what you can measure on mains-inlet.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  43. Re:Do not store songs locally by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    You seem to have no idea how much power even an idle PC consumes.

    I may have no idea, but the power meters on my computer do. Around 350W when I'm playing games. Around 270W when just taxing the CPU. Around 90W when the computer is sitting there idle with the screen off, 89W with the screen off and the HDDs powered down too. So the 2 HDDs in my computer use 10% of the total power load of an idle PC. And that's a 5 year old not very energy efficient one.

    Now looking at my server at home it uses 47W idle. And just over 110W when serving files from both arrays. So the HDDs on the PC which spends all of its time powered on use up more than half of the power, hence I power them down.

    A 6W change is typically below what you can measure on mains-inlet.

    A mains inlet measures watt-hours if you can't measure it then increase the integration time over which you're measuring. Or you could change the way you measure it. For instance you could measure it by looking at your bank account. Powering down the drives when not in use (the majority of the time on my NAS) saves me 11EUR per year. Over 120EUR for my server.

    Also if you can't measure 6W then don't buy your measurement equipment from Alibaba.

  44. Re:Do not store songs locally by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Also if you can't measure 6W then don't buy your measurement equipment from Alibaba.

    And there the discussion stops, as you just failed EE101.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  45. Re:Do not store songs locally by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Actually I am an EE, have been for many years. Nice try though.

  46. So tell me again why should i buy stuff? by Rainwulf · · Score: 1

    You try to be legal and buy your music and videos, but there are always things fucking you around. Warnings on dvds about piracy. You just cant press play. Music services injecting ads, and killing of disk space...bizarre limitation on how long tv and movies stay on streaming services. Ads even AFTER you pay, and then they advertise ad free services that you pay extra for.. AND STILL GET ADS.

    Piracy will continue while its more convenient to do so.

    1. Re:So tell me again why should i buy stuff? by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Even when it works and "plays for sure" it is still a massively inferior experience compared to listening a humble 16bit 48Khz FLAC file. So you get to spend battery, CPU cycles, Radio cycles and now storage space for an inferior experience? And you pay for it, yeah it's the golden age of the streaming media, when you don't know better Spotify and their ilk are like mana from heaven.

  47. Re:Do you have a Gigabyte IRAM? by lucm · · Score: 1

    yes I have multiple pagefiles (2gb on IRAM & 512mb on a WD 10,000 rpm Raptor driven off of a Promise Ex-8350 128mb ECC ram caching raid sata 1/2 controller)

    I see. I guess in your mind this explains why you can tell that you have your pagefile on HDD, not ram, but also that you have your pagefile on ram, not HDD. Let's call it a Shrodinger's pagefile.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  48. Re:You were wrong - accept it by lucm · · Score: 1

    that's just what "your kind" does, lol... apk

    Oh, so you're a racist on top of everything?

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  49. Re:Troll losers like you aren't a race stupid by lucm · · Score: 1

    Dude take a chill pill. Express yourself more clearly and don't contradict yourself if you want people to take you seriously. Those links you keep posting to other messages in the same thread are not supporting your points, they just make you look like an aspie with a grudge.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  50. apk is using fake names all the time by lucm · · Score: 1

    I don't take FAKE NAME ONLINE

    Yes you did just that in another thread, pretending to be someone else and linking back to this thread. Unfortunately your unique way to express yourself betrayed you. Next time try to write full sentences and don't constantly refer to the titles of your posts if you want to conceal your identity. The fact that you're probably one of the only persons on Slashdot who frequently posts links to other comments also was an obvious tell.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  51. apk is a proven liar. by lucm · · Score: 1

    You're no longer fooling me with your torrent of babble and bragging. Skate around it as much ss you want, but twice in this thread you've been caught lying, and now you've also been caught pretending to be someone else in other threads while waging your little vengeful campaign.

    You're not merely the excentric techie people assume you are. You're a dishonest, scheming individual that just happens to have a hard time expressing himself succinctly and clearly. I'm disappointed, it's like finding out that the joyful greeter I see every week at the department store is a convicted sex offender.

    --
    lucm, indeed.