Results not posted at website #32
Comments
|
EDIT: My mistake. This does not appear to be relevant to this particular issue. |
I am sure you were well meaning but I do not have or show that issue here. This system is running kernel 4.9 and not affected by that change whatsoever. |
|
My apologies. Your issue popped up in one of my searches when I was digging into the issue, and they all looked very similar. You're right, your issue appears to be something different. |
|
For me (actual error from "bash -x Storage.sh" - that way we can see what php page returns) I suggest adding Also pointing to this github project on https://pibenchmarks.com/ page would be nice. |
|
The problem with the OP's submission is that the SD card YF8SD was not recognized. I've since added it to the database. Thanks arekm for posting that fix for your language settings. I've actually added this into storage.sh. Thanks! |
|
@TheRemote I have other new Samsung SD cards. Can you post the models you have in your database currently and I can give you the other numbers |
|
@TheRemote the brand you put is incorrect I have multiple pro plus's as well (the up to 160MB/s and up to 180MB/s variants) brand info: |
|
Also the various pro plus models should NOT be grouped together. they are different cards and are marketed as such. |
|
Hey officialgman, I can definitely fix the Samsung Pro Ultimate card. That is clearly a brand new one they are trying to differentiate (which is refreshing). As far as the Pro Plus being marketed differently what do you mean by that? They're literally reusing their same brand name. They do this with all of their cards as well. A Samsung Evo Plus from 10 years ago is not the same as a Samsung Evo Plus today. Isn't this true for just about every SD card? How about a SanDisk Ultra? That has been a SD card for 20+ years and range from everything from not even class 10 to application class A2. Why do manufacturers do this? Reuse their same brand name for new / different products? It's definitely not to differentiate them. I think it's quite the opposite. They're trying to capitalize on that brand name with a different / newer product and that is their choice. If that's the brand they are marketed as then that's the brand they'll get grouped on for the site. We have the same problem with storage adapters on the site. Some of the recommended USB to SATA adapters have existed for 10-15+ years and have had several different chipsets. I hate that the manufacturers reuse their own brands but they do and you're right that it makes my job very, very, very difficult to try to differentiate these products because the manufacturer is not trying to differentiate them. They're trying to capitalize on previous brand names they've built with a completely different product. If it weren't for your report I would have had no idea about the new Samsung Pro Ultimate card. There are no lists of these models #s available anywhere. If you google that model # you gave me my site will be the #1 result (and a bunch of the other ones down the top 10). I can definitely further differentiate the Pro Plus cards but it's hard without exact reports / information like this. I do differentiate them on some of the other cards though that have similar situations going on. I can only get this information from you guys so thank you for reporting it! Most of this information is considered proprietary / trade secrets. They literally do not release these model #s publicly (intentionally). We just need to capture and identity them. |
|
I have one more model number as well |
I just want the results to be separate on your website depending on the actual model number. It seems you already do that so no concerns there. BTW, why has my card disappeared from the fastest SD card list? It should be # 1 Also, something is wrong with the parsing of that lexar card. its an ssd and shows at the top of the SD card list |
Maybe it would be good to just show "unknown" on the website whenever a card does not have a known "friendly" model name (eg: |
|
There's a minimum of 3 results required to display on the top charts. You could just run the test on it two more times for it to show. I'm investigating the best way to show unidentified results. I've been working on showing unidentified/unidentifiable storage adapters mostly first but I'll investigate the best way to show SD results as well! |
Got a response from the user. It's the up to 160MB/s model. So it either looks like each storage capacity has its own unique model number or there are just multiple models numbers marketed with the up to 160MB/s branding. |
I have run the benchmark as have others a few times and results never got posted on the website
eg:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: