On 09/29/2014 12:56 AM, lee wrote: > Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> writes: >> On 09/27/2014 09:52 PM, lee wrote: >>> Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> writes: >>>> On 09/22/2014 03:23 AM, lee wrote: >>>>> Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> writes: >>>> I always at least try to read/interpret the SMART data. I consider it >>>> valuable information, although it is sometimes difficult to interpret. >>>> (Especially Seagate's Raw Read Error Rate and some other attributes). >>> >>> How do you know which of the numbers are correct and which aren't? >> >> I always check whether they are plausible. I have recorded my computer >> usage times and the oldest disk has always been in use. My computer >> usage times sum around the same as the disk "power-on" and they increase >> on a daily basis which makes me believe the data is correct. For >> temperature, it gives me weird results which either means they are in >> Farenheit or just wrong which is why I am ignoring that data at the >> moment. Other potentially "bad" things are all zero which I read as >> "SMART has nothing bad to report" etc. > > So do these values actually tell you? Is there a difference in usage > times between a disk that has been busy with seeking and > writing/receiving data all the time --- like when rebuilding a RAID --- > and another disk that has been (mostly) idling all the time? Not really, they only report "power-on hours" and that is about the time I have them. The SSD I once owned reported something like "Number of GB written" (but that updated only after another full 64 GB had been written) and proved to be no reliable means of predicting the drive failure) > When you are seeing incredible values for the temperatures, does this > tell you that other values you're seeing are more or less incredible? I cannot tell much about the reliability of SMART data in general but should I see a lot of "bad" values suddenly appearing I would immediately perform some additional backups and check the data more closely, listen to the drive sounds etc. [...] >>> Using the disks for VMs? That's all the more reason to have a server? >> >> Well, unlike with "server usage" I normally only run one or two VMs at >> the same time (not enough RAM could be one of the reasons) while having >> many different images on my HDDs for testing and learning purposes. > > Well, the setup doesn't sound bad at all, in theory. > > Not enough RAM? Do you have only 4GB? I have 6 GB and a certified upgrade (trying to avoid further mistakes :) ) adding 3x4 GB costs about 200€ (adding 3x2 GB also costs about 200€). Also, I have not checked if it is OK to run 3x2 GB (currently installed) and additional 3x4 GB from the BIOS' point of view. I sometimes think about investing in the expansion but then always come to the conclusion that it is rarely useful: Sometimes I want to run many VMs and sometimes I want to run ZPAQ with the strongest compression levels. That's about the only use cases I currently have for more than 6 GB of RAM. Also, I fear that my CPU might then become the next bottleneck and I normally do not upgrade CPUs. >>> Remember the above mouse problem: These computers are awfully slow, so >>> perhaps they forget about the mouse. Now put some good load on yours >>> and see what happens to your USB disks ... >> >> I will try to reproduce such a mouse or keyboard issue first because >> that seems easier to do and requires less preperation in terms of backup >> (I will do it on a dedicated testing machine). > > Hm, interesting :) I wouldn't know how to reproduce it. One of the > major slowdowns on this machine seems to be graphics. Perhaps I need to > look into using an appropriate driver for the graphics card. The latest > version of Libreoffice (4.x, not the ancient one that's in Debian) might > be somehow involved in this. Take a spreadsheet with like 2000 rows, > apply some filters, mark all the lines displayed and you are kinda stuck > because the machine is too slow to let you do something, like going into > the Edit menu to copy what's selected. You have to be extremely patient > then ... I have also had laggy experiences with missing (or outdated) graphics drivers. PS/2 did not seem to make any difference in that cases. (Graphics on Linux is a complex topic itself causing quite a few instabilities in my experience) >> I have had a Windows 95 FAT system from 1996 and it still worked. > > That's amazing! I tried out W95 when I was looking for an alternative > to OS/2. It lasted about half a day before it had rendered itself > unusable beyond repair, so I decided to use Linux. > > Anyway, did you run chkdsk sometimes? Well, I did not have the computer and filesystem since 1996, but when I got it, one of the first things I tried was "scandisk" (because I always liked Scandisk's nice blue/yellow user interface) and it had quickly checked the small HDD. Until I installed Linux on that machine, the System always worked. Still, I did not put heavy load to it: I just installed an old Opera version (the only CSS-aware browser which I could get to run) and did some HTML+CSS. [...] >> And rather than any "data-format" failing, I always worry about the >> programs failing (or going missing) to read the data when it is >> necessary. > > Failing in which way? The data being so old that the software which was > used to create it isn't available anymore? Either that or the data being only readable by software which is not available without extensive installation or system modification, special licenses etc. >> Still, I also think about using an EXT-based system and checking if >> any Windows programs exist to read them (I have read about, but not >> tried ext2fsd yet). > > IIRC, I've read about something to use ext3 with Windows. But Windows > is a dead end. I do not like Windows either, but it is /common/. This means that if I ever lose data and system and need to rely on the backup, it will be a great advantage to be able to recover at least the essential parts from a Windows machine which is easier to get access to than a Linux machine. >>> My experience with FAT is that it is bound to fail sooner than later. I >>> never used a CF card, only SD cards, though not much. I haven't seen an >>> SD card failing yet. >> >> The only flash memory which I have seen failing were cheap USB sticks >> and my SSD. Also, I have heard about cheap SD cards failing. My CF cards >> have never failed. (But my HDDs have also never failed yet. :) ) > > Hm, I have a 1GB USB stick which is about 7 years old. It still works > (probably because it was almost never used). It's falling apart, > though. I really should get one with more capacity so I don't need to > burn a Gentoo DVD ... > > And there seems to be some agreement that CF cards work better than SD > cards. But who knows, perhaps they improved the SD cards. Interestingly, I also know of a 512 MB and a 1 GB stick which are old and still working. The ones, I saw failing were one 16 GB model and a few 2 GB models all of which were built when 16 GB costed less than 40€, i.e. they were rather "new". Linux-Fan -- http://masysma.lima-city.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature