Re: 2TB file system
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Chris Brennan <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8/17/2011 10:19 AM, Dejan Ribič wrote:
>> Dne 17.8.2011 15:27, piše lina:
>>> What's the best choice of the portable hard drive.
>>> reliable. 1TB.
>>> There are many brands, I don't know which one is reliable. I once
>>> tried the hitachi.
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Roger Leigh<firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:51:44PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Rick Pasotto<email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I recently acquired a 2TB SATA HD that I have not yet installed. It
>>>>>> be used entirely to store media files. Would there be any problems in
>>>>>> formating the entire disk (no partitions) as an EXT4 file system?
>>>>>> Any other considerations?
>>>>> These days, though with current motherboards and SATA controllers,
>>>>> current releases of Debian with 2.6 kernels,ext4, and 64-bit operating
>>>>> system? Goddess only knows how large of a disk you can manage. Try it
>>>>> with your system and let us know!!!!!
>>>> It should always work in some form, though you might need to
>>>> restrict its size with a jumper or force 512 byte sectors if you
>>>> see problems.
>>>> One odd problem I came across when I installed a pair of WD20EARS
>>>> 2.0GB discs is that while they are 4KiB sector drives, they tell the
>>>> opearating system that their native sector size is 512B, i.e. they
>>>> lie. Who knows why?--presumably so it's backward compatible or
>>>> something, but it does mean when partitioning you need to manually
>>>> partition on 4KiB boundaries or else you'll suffer from poor
>>>> performance. Hopefully in the future they will tell the truth so
>>>> that all the tools just work.
>>>> I worked around this by partitioning using GPT and telling the
>>>> tool (parted IIRC) to use units of 4KiB to ensure correct partition
>>>> alignment. It's all working nicely so far with LVM and/or Btrfs on
>>>> .''`. Roger Leigh
>>>> : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
>>>> `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux?
>>>> `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> I recommend using Western Digital, I have those drives in all of my
>> pc's have one 80 GB and that one is from the days when 80 GB drives,
>> where the most that you could get, and its still working great. BTW:
>> Didn't Hitachi used to be IBM? I am just asking because I didn't have
>> the best experience with IBM drives, had two of them and they both broke
>> within 18 months(lucky for me I had quaranty for them :D ).
> See, I'm the opposite of all of these suggestions. I would never
> recommend Hitachi/IBM or Western Digital. I've had repeatedly poor
> experiences with both.
> I bought 2 80GB IBM DeskStar's and they fried the machine with in 48
> hours, upon inspected the drives had some how caught fire, the fire
> crated a short which cooked everything into something looking like burnt
> bacon. Luckily I was close by and the fire didn't spread, but it did
> trip the breaker in my apartment.
> I used to use WD's back when the biggest you could get was 8GB, once
> they broke the 10GB-15GB barriers is when I started to have repeated
> failures on drives, for stupidly unexplained reasons too. I just came to
> the point where I failed to see their value vs application (daily
> desktop use.)
> I had someone who absolutely insisted on Hitachi drives, started out
> with a 40GB drive, DoA, replaced it *THREE* times, directly from the
> factory, all three were DoA. Now we're up to 4 DoA Drives, Hatachi/IBM
> knew my name and dreaded my calls. Finally they got fed up with me and
> next-day'd 4 of their latest model drives, hot off the assembly line
> they swore. When the drives arrived, I saw that they were 80GB 10K RPM
> drives. They worked great once I had the system assembled. A week later,
> I get a phone call that the machine can't boot. At first I thought it
> was the motherboad, so I brought an old 20GB Seagate drive I had laying
> around with me, plugged the Seagate in and the bios found the drive
> instantly. Whereas the Hitachi's would cause the bios to hang for
> upwards of 10 minutes before the drives would fail. I let the client
> keep the 20GB drive as it suited his needs anyway and took the dead
> drives with me. When I got home, I tested each drive and sure enough,
> they were absolutely dead, they refused to spin up. Returned them to
> IBM/Hitachi and for a refund that I never got, never got paid for the
> original 40GB drive which was $250 at the time. On the plus side, that
> 20GB Seagate drive is still running, 9 years later as the FTP Storage
> drive for that office's intranet.
> Ever since the above incident I've used Seagate drives, no matter the
> application, I will save up what I need or figure the cost of the
> Seagate's I needed for the job at hand. I've got a few more 20's laying
> around, some still in use all the way up to 4x1TB drives in my desktop.
> never had any serious problems with any of them. On the rare chance that
> I did, Seagate was quick to get me a new drive ASAP.
> P.S. I have never heard of GoFlex for a hard-drive manufacturer ...
> toddles off to google ... ahh I see, GoFlex is Seagates line of external
> drives (I don't use them so I had no idea...)
Yeah. Here I meant external hard drive. (Actually I have no idea about
what's kind of driver I used in desktop or laptop).
The external drives mainly plan to store some data which won't be
visited often, kind of back up.
500 GB + 500 GB is much more safer (for data storage) than all in one 1TB drive?
Okay, one thing I won't consider the HITACHI, so mainly seageat.
>> Chris Brennan
>> A: Yes.
>> >Q: Are you sure?
>> >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>> >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>> http://xkcd.com/84/ | http://xkcd.com/149/ | http://xkcd.com/549/
>> GPG: D5B20C0C (6741 8EE4 6C7D 11FB 8DA8 9E4A EECD 9A84 D5B2 0C0C)