前幾天 Hacker News 炸了很久，如果是從 Twitter 上的資料來看，是從 2022/07/08 14:08 UTC 這篇：
中間還原失敗 (2022/07/08 17:35 UTC)：
到最後恢復 (2022/07/08 20:48 UTC)：
Twitter 這邊的資料看起來差不多是六個小時多，以一個應該是只有 database 需要還原的站台來說的確是蠻久的，所以後續在「HN is up again」這邊就有在討論原因，裡面 HN 的老大 dang 也有提到 downtime 是七個小時多：
8 hours of downtime, but not data loss, since there was no data to lose during the downtime.
Last post before we went down (2022-07-08 12:46:04 UTC): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32026565
First post once we were back up (2022-07-08 20:30:55 UTC): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32026571 (hey, that's this thread! how'd you do that, tpmx?)
So, 7h 45m of downtime. What we don't know is how many posts (or votes, etc.) happened after our last backup, and were therefore lost. The latest vote we have was at 2022-07-08 12:46:05 UTC, which is about the same as the last post.
There can't be many lost posts or votes, though, because I checked HN Search (https://hn.algolia.com/) just before we brought HN back up, and their most recent comment and story were behind ours. That means our last backup on the ill-fated server was taken after the last API update (HN Search relies on our API), and the API gets updated every 30 seconds.
I'm not saying that's a rock-solid argument, but it suggests that 30 seconds is an upper bound on how much data we lost.
另外大家就在找 dang 的回應是什麼 (畢竟是第一手資料)，用 Ctrl-F 找一下就看到有趣的猜測，從 32028511 這個節點可以看到這串有趣的討論，首先是 mikeiem：
You are never going to guess how long the HN SSDs were in the servers... never ever... OK... I'll tell you: 4.5years. I am not even kidding.
然後是 kabdib 的回應：
Let me narrow my guess: They hit 4 years, 206 days and 16 hours . . . or 40,000 hours.
And that they were sold by HP or Dell, and manufactured by SanDisk.
Do I win a prize?
(None of us win prizes on this one).
接著就是 dang 說他覺得這個猜測很有可能：
Wow. It's possible that you have nailed this.
Edit: here's why I like this theory. I don't believe that the two disks had similar levels of wear, because the primary server would get more writes than the standby, and we switched between the two so rarely. The idea that they would have failed within hours of each other because of wear doesn't seem plausible.
But the two servers were set up at the same time, and it's possible that the two SSDs had been manufactured around the same time (same make and model). The idea that they hit the 40,000 hour mark within a few hours of each other seems entirely plausible.
Mike of M5 (mikiem in this thread) told us today that it "smelled like a timing issue" to him, and that is squarely in this territory.
後續他也從自家的 /newest 裡面撈了相關的資料出來，依照他撈出來的關鍵字，看起來是用 HPE 出的 SSD：
It's also an example of the dharma of /newest – the rising and falling away of stories that get no attention:
HPE releases urgent fix to stop enterprise SSDs conking out at 40K hours - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22706968 - March 2020 (0 comments)
HPE SSD flaw will brick hardware after 40k hours - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22697758 - March 2020 (0 comments)
Some HP Enterprise SSD will brick after 40000 hours without update - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22697001 - March 2020 (1 comment)
HPE Warns of New Firmware Flaw That Bricks SSDs After 40k Hours of Use - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22692611 - March 2020 (0 comments)
HPE Warns of New Bug That Kills SSD Drives After 40k Hours - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22680420 - March 2020 (0 comments)
(there's also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32035934, but that was submitted today)
這次 downtime 看起來很像是中了 SSD firmware bug，目前看起來先搬到 EC2 上面了：
$ host news.ycombinator.com
news.ycombinator.com has address 50.112.136.166
$ host 50.112.136.166
166.136.112.50.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer ec2-50-112-136-166.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com.
看討論串應該是暫時性的？
