Hitachi Deskstar hard drive
WT
HDS728080PLA380. My brother's machine quit with the Hitachi "click of
death" and I am trying to find a working hard drive like his to swap
parts and try to recover their data. Anyone have one sitting around?
I think his machine is an HP.
WT
PhattyMo
Oy,There's a reason those drives got the nickname "deathstar".
I had one,until I tossed it out. :-(
CJT
> I've got two 40 gig DeathStars on a Promise ATA RAID 1 controller
> inside a P3-800 box that I used to use for a work PC. It ran
> continuously for 2 years before being replaced by a Dell. Although I
> haven't fired it up in a year I have no doubt that it will work. I was
> under the assumption that the DeathStar laptop drive earned the
> reputation rather than the desktop drives, maybe I'm wrong.
I don't think the problems were (are?) limited to laptop drives.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Peter Hucker
I've seen the same number of faults with Maxtors. And Seagates. And Western Digitals. I can only conclude all drives are equal.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
This girl walks into a hardware store as she needs a new hinge for a door at home.
As she brings it to the counter, the clerk asks, "Wanna screw for that hinge?"
To which she replies, "No, but I'll suck you off for that toaster on the top shelf."
Peter Hucker
How much is the data worth?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280222608592
What should you do if a girl sits on your hand?
Try to get her off.
dmanz...@googlemail.com
I have had this problem before a few times and have tried changing the
logic board on the drives, NEVER with any success.
Hitachi says this is because you have to find a drive with the same
FIRMWARE (whatever that means with a disc drive!) and in practice you
never will. There are complex pieces of astronomically expensive
equipment designed to re-write firmware, none apparently which do this
to failed drives.
Besides, why are you so sure it is some part wihch can be switched?
The only real solution is to find someone like OnTrack who can take
your drive apart in a Clean Room and read the data on the platters.
The outfits which do this have a lock on the market and know they can
screw users into paying any amount they choose to charge to do this.
(because companies are usually happy to pay any amount to do this).
As you have probably found out. These companies even have intricate
programs which con you into believing that they can do this and are
the only people who can. If it was so easy to get drives working
again, dont you think they would be able to repair your drive?
When you do this, the next problem appears which is that the will send
you DVDs with thousands of numbered directories and tens of thousands
of (numbered, not named) files on them which will take you hundreds of
hours to go through.
GMAN
>On Nov 7, 10:42=A0pm, WT <wayne.tiff...@asi.com> wrote:
>> I am looking for an 80 Gb Hitachi Deskstar hard drive, Model
>> death" and I am trying to find a working hard drive like his to swap
>> I think his machine is an HP.
>>
>
>I have had this problem before a few times and have tried changing the
>logic board on the drives, NEVER with any success.
>
>Hitachi says this is because you have to find a drive with the same
>FIRMWARE (whatever that means with a disc drive!) and in practice you
>never will. There are complex pieces of astronomically expensive
>equipment designed to re-write firmware, none apparently which do this
>to failed drives.
>
>Besides, why are you so sure it is some part wihch can be switched?
>
I have repaired many different brands of drives by replacing the logic board
from a known good drive to a bad drive.Saved many 18GB WD drives back then.
After i recovered the data, i replaced the boad back on the good drive.
dmanz...@googlemail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do the WD drives have this curious and meaningless firmware number? I
wonder if this 'firmware number' reason is genuine or if it is
something put there to prevent users repairing their drives and making
them buy new ones? Has anyone ever replaced the board on a Travelstar
succesfully?
I am aware that lots of people have tried because sellers exist on
ebay pretending that their drives may have bent pins etc where in
reality they have tried to do eactly this and found that it doesnt
work. I myself sold all my old Travelstar ones on ebay when I had
established that you cant change boards on ANY of them but I wonder if
anyone has ever found a drive with the same firmware and changed a
board in a case where the board was at fault?
Peter Hucker
> On Nov 7, 10:42 pm, WT <wayne.tiff...@asi.com> wrote:
>> I am looking for an 80 Gb Hitachi Deskstar hard drive, Model
>> HDS728080PLA380. My brother's machine quit with the Hitachi "click of
>> death" and I am trying to find a working hard drive like his to swap
>> parts and try to recover their data. Anyone have one sitting around?
>> I think his machine is an HP.
>>
>> WT
>
> I have had this problem before a few times and have tried changing the
> logic board on the drives, NEVER with any success.
>
> Hitachi says this is because you have to find a drive with the same
> FIRMWARE (whatever that means with a disc drive!) and in practice you
> never will. There are complex pieces of astronomically expensive
> equipment designed to re-write firmware, none apparently which do this
> to failed drives.
But surely you can change the firmware of the good drive? And you can do it with software, at least I just did it with a bank of Maxtor SCSI drives on a server.
Some people are like slinkies, not really good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
dmanz...@googlemail.com
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:31:18 -0000, <dmanzal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 10:42 pm, WT <wayne.tiff...@asi.com> wrote:
> >> I am looking for an 80 Gb Hitachi Deskstar hard drive, Model
> >> HDS728080PLA380. My brother's machine quit with the Hitachi "click of
> >> death" and I am trying to find a working hard drive like his to swap
> >> parts and try to recover their data. Anyone have one sitting around?
> >> I think his machine is an HP.
>
> >> WT
>
> > I have had this problem before a few times and have tried changing the
> > logic board on the drives, NEVER with any success.
>
> > Hitachi says this is because you have to find a drive with the same
> > FIRMWARE (whatever that means with a disc drive!) and in practice you
> > never will. There are complex pieces of astronomically expensive
> > equipment designed to re-write firmware, none apparently which do this
> > to failed drives.
>
> But surely you can change the firmware of the good drive? And you can do it with software, at least I just did it with a bank of Maxtor SCSI drives on a server.
>
>
> Some people are like slinkies, not really good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Interesting! i tried that and all I found was that to change the
firmware on a Travelstar, you had to buy tens of thousands of dollas
worth of equipment. And then there was no place to download 'new'
firmware. (which was what made me think that this whole firmware thing
was a big hoax: If there is something wrong or old or non-functional
about firmware, why on earth would the manufacturer not want you to
update your hardware which suffers from this old firmware?)
How on earth did you do this, where was the download site for the new
firmware and does maxtor treat their drives any different from IBM/
Hitachi?
Peter Hucker
The maxtor site will not hand out firmware, they say to consult the system manufacturer. In my case it was a Dell poweredge server, and Dell gave me the firmware (on a bootable CD). I think the difference is they are SCSI drives, and firmware is more important?
--
You know you've spent too much time on the computer when you spill milk and the first thing you think is, 'Edit, Undo.'
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
I've taken apart one of these drives and found that the plating on the
glass platter has been partially worn off. Not as bad as in these
photos, but still with an easily visible gap:
<http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~ken/crash/index.html>
Head crash at its worst.
<http://www.berdonclaims.com/cases/details.asp?CaseID=173>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_Deskstar>
There are some other possible problems. See:
<http://www.dataclinic.co.uk/data-recovery-ibm-deskstar-hard-disk-drive.htm>
for URL's and refernces.
The "firmware" is actually on the first few tracks of the drive. It
gets loaded into RAM on bootup. It cannot be easily re-written or
replaced.
Methinks you will not have any success recovering data from a drive
that exhibits the "click of death" problem. I once wasted about $300
only to discover it was hopeless.
Incidentally, nobody does backups until AFTER they've lost a massive
amount of data and correspondly massive amount of time and money.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
bz
42df97...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
> Interesting! i tried that and all I found was that to change the
> firmware on a Travelstar, you had to buy tens of thousands of dollas
> worth of equipment. And then there was no place to download 'new'
> firmware. (which was what made me think that this whole firmware thing
> was a big hoax: If there is something wrong or old or non-functional
> about firmware, why on earth would the manufacturer not want you to
> update your hardware which suffers from this old firmware?)
>
> How on earth did you do this, where was the download site for the new
> firmware and does maxtor treat their drives any different from IBM/
> Hitachi?
>
This guy has a series of lectures on how to fix hard drives
http://electronic-day.blogspot.com/search/label/How%20TO%20Repair%20Hard%
20Drive
He changes electronics, sometimes heads, sometimes motors.
The electronics has a map of bad sectors remapped to spares. Those will be
wrong.
But some data recovery is better than none.
The electronics needs to be produced within a few months of the 'target
drive', even if the model and rev numbers are the same, changes occur.
But some data recovery is better than none.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Eeyore
WT wrote:
Try ebay. They turn up occasionally.
Graham
WT
Hitachi Deskstar drive:
Model HDS728080PLA380
P/N:0A31048
MLC:BA1468
William Sommerwerck
> amount of data and correspondly massive amount of time and money.
Not I. I back up my hard drive periodically. When W2K "collapsed" several
years, I had full backup and lost nothing.
Heinz Schmitz
... only the time to reinstall every single program. Does your backup
care for the bookmarks of your browser, the mails of your emailer and
so forth, which all happily sit somewhere else than in the "My Data"
directory?
The only real thing is a disk imager, working and tested - for your
OS, the hard disk size you use, and the file system you have :-).
To have an incremental backup, too, would be fine.
Regards,
H.
William Sommerwerck
news:vtflh4luohka0op7r...@4ax.com...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> Incidentally, nobody does backups until AFTER they've lost
>>> a massive amount of data and correspondly massive amount
>>> of time and money.
>> Not I. I back up my hard drive periodically. When W2K "collapsed"
>> several years, I had full backup and lost nothing.
> ... only the time to reinstall every single program. Does your backup
> care for the bookmarks of your browser, the mails of your emailer and
> so forth, which all happily sit somewhere else than in the "My Data"
> directory?
> The only real thing is a disk imager, working and tested -- for your
> OS, the hard disk size you use, and the file system you have :-).
> To have an incremental backup, too, would be fine.
When I said "full backup", I meant full backup. I use Copy Commander 9.1.
Unlike Ghost (and likely most other products) that claim to produce an exact
copy, Copy Commander actually creates a bootable backup. I periodically copy
the entire drive to a second hard drive. If the main drive fails, all I have
to do is stick in a jumper and swap cables, then restart. As this isn't
something I do every day, Really Important files are also backed up to a Zip
disk.
My next computer will have integral RAID, and I won't have to manually back
up again, ever. (Except possibly Really Important stuff, just to be safe.)
Clint Sharp
Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes
>My next computer will have integral RAID, and I won't have to manually back
>up again, ever. (Except possibly Really Important stuff, just to be safe.)
failed/corrupted RAID sets. Do not rely on RAID to keep your data safe,
if the chances of two disks failing in a RAID 5 set then I must be the
luckiest (they weren't my RAID sets) man alive because I've seen it
dozens of times in the past 5 years. If you value your data then back it
up somewhere safe.
>
>
>
--
Clint Sharp
Peter Hucker
If you're going for raid, buy a raid controller card, and look at the performance (tom's hardware etc) of each. There is a vast difference in performance between them, and onboard controllers really suck. In fact all the ones I've used don't show much speed increase over a single drive!
For the first time in many years, an old man traveled from his rural town to the city to attend a movie.
After buying his ticket, he stopped at the concession stand to purchase some popcorn.
Handing the attendant $1.50, he couldn't help but comment, "The last time I came to the movies, popcorn was only 15 cents."
"Well, sir," the attendant replied with a grin, "You're really going to enjoy yourself. We have sound now."
Jerry Peters
RAID is _not_ a backup. It doesn't protect against software & operator
error, for example.
Jerry
Jerry Peters
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Incidentally, nobody does backups until AFTER they've lost a massive
>>> amount of data and correspondly massive amount of time and money.
>
>>Not I. I back up my hard drive periodically. When W2K "collapsed" several
>>years, I had full backup and lost nothing.
>
> ... only the time to reinstall every single program. Does your backup
> care for the bookmarks of your browser, the mails of your emailer and
> so forth, which all happily sit somewhere else than in the "My Data"
> directory?
All of the programs and data are on the backup, that's why it's called
a backup.
Yes.
What's the "My Data" directory and why would I only backup 1
directory?
>
> The only real thing is a disk imager, working and tested - for your
> OS, the hard disk size you use, and the file system you have :-).
> To have an incremental backup, too, would be fine.
Depends, what you're using. I do a full backup every few months, then
a weekly differential. Current work in progress gets copied to a USB
memory stick as appropriate.
And, yes, I periodically test my backups by doing restores.
Jerry
William Sommerwerck
news:CBw$tLDDQy...@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
I read this recently elsewhere, and find it very hard to believe that two
drives -- even identical ones purchased at the same time -- would fail
essentially simultaneously.
William Sommerwerck
> the performance (tom's hardware etc) of each. There is a vast
> difference in performance between them, and onboard controllers
> really suck. In fact all the ones I've used don't show much speed
> increase over a single drive!
I was looking at an Adaptec card the other, and was appalled at the $350
price tag.
David
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
message news:gfg716$k75$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I had a situation with Seagate drives where the scenario
above happened. There were two identical drives in a
computer purchased at the same time. After about 3 years one
failed due to increasing bad sectors being found.and was
replaced. One week later, the identical failure occurred in
the second drive. I doubt power supply problems or any other
common cause due the computer was involved.
David
Jim Yanik
news:AeXSk.10427$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
any speculation on what was "causing" the "bad sectors"?
I wonder if it's an electrolytic cap problem?(on the drives) ;-}
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jeff Liebermann
>any speculation on what was "causing" the "bad sectors"?
Head clog. It's a direct function of the runtime of the drive (and
the number of starts and stops). Also, various chemical outgassing
and corrosion issues inside the HDA.
I've seen exactly the same thing in various RAID arrays. Near
simultaneous failures of the drives. Years ago, I had one RAID 5
array that killed 4 drives in about a week. It was pure luck that I
was able to keep the beast up while re-mirroring a drive, only to have
the next drive subsequenty fail.
However, things got worse after that. I decided to give up on RAID
and went to independent drives, with some of the drives acting as an
image backup of the main drives. They would get backed up at night.
In theory, all I had to do was remove the main drive, shove in the
image backup, and putter along merrily. I never had to do that.
Instead, both sets of drives again failed nearly simultaneously about
2 years later. Even though one set of drives was activily seeking,
while the other was just spinning, the lifetimes were about the same.
So, I thought I was safe by removing the backup drives. Different
customer, same problem. I had box of brand new drives sitting on the
shelf. One drive in a RAID 5 array was acting funny (according to
the Mylex controller), so I replaced it with a new drive, which failed
in about a week. So, I crammed in another new drive, which also
lasted about a week. Then the drives in the active RAID 5 array
started to fail. I bought some new drives from a different vendor,
and rebuilt the array, thus saving the day. With these dogs, it
didn't matter if the drives were running or just sitting in the box.
Both ways, they failed nearly simultaneously. (Maybe there's a
failure timer inside the drive).
Moral: You can't win.
Lately, I've been doing much better on the drive lifetime and RAID. I
still have some striped arrays (for speed) running. I'm using various
Seagate drives and have had no failures for about 3 years. With my
luck, they'll probably all die at once, but so far, the stats show
that they're doing fine.
Note that this is all hardware RAID. I won't use software RAID due to
some bad experiences trying to recover.
Incidentally, my office SCO Unix box has been continuously running a
Conner 1060s SCSI drive since about 1993. I keep waiting for it to
fail, so I have an excuse to build up something better. The 486DX2/66
mother board has died twice. One power supply died. Some RAM went
bad. But, the hard disk and Ineptec 1542 controller keeps plunking
along for 15 years. Hint: It's always on.
msg
<snip>
> Incidentally, my office SCO Unix box has been continuously running a
> Conner 1060s SCSI drive since about 1993. I keep waiting for it to
> fail, so I have an excuse to build up something better. The 486DX2/66
> mother board has died twice. One power supply died. Some RAM went
> bad. But, the hard disk and Ineptec 1542 controller keeps plunking
> along for 15 years. Hint: It's always on.
>
As part of power consumption mitigation this summer, I finally swapped
out my two HP C3010 2GB 5400 RPM 5 1/4 inch SCSI drives that had been
running here continuously since 1998, and many years (perhaps nearly
as long) prior to that on someone else's Sun box; they made a _lot_
of heat, but the driver (on AT&T SVR4) never reported an error the
entire time I ran them. I did cool them well however.
There is/was an electric lamp (bulb - carbon filament I believe) that
is/has been running continuously more than 100 years in a fire station
in the SF area; there ought to be a survey of rotating mass storage
installations to find the longest running examples out there.
Michael
GMAN
http://www.worldrecordsacademy.
org/technology/longest-burning_light_bulb_The_Centennial_Light_sets_world_reco
rd_80242.htm
Heres the address if you want to see in person
4550 East Ave., Livermore, CA
William Sommerwerck
to. So that, in theory, would pretty much eliminate the possibility of
simultaneous failure.
Jeff Liebermann
Only if it's a different maker, model, or lot number drive. Read my
rant again. One issue that I listed was having two identical drives,
one spinning, the other just sitting on the shelf, fail roughly
simultaneously. That can happen if the failure is caused by IC
package leakage, board contamination, tin whiskers, or divine
irritation. I only saw this problem once, so I suspect it's rather
unusual. Still, it's something to worry about. These daze, I avoid
running backups to identical drives out of paranoia.
Actually, what I'm currently doing for desktops is probably equally
dangerous. After about 4 years running, I buy a bigger|better|faster
drive, mirror the contents of the old drive to the new drive, and then
use the old drive for backups. In other words, pre-emptive
replacement. Using various mirroring software, it's quite quick and
easy. Convincing the customers to replace a working drive is not so
easy. The theory is that the new drive will be more reliable and last
longer than the older backup drive. So far, it's been working well.
However, I now have a growing pile of very used "backup" drives that
are unsuitable for new systems or replacements.
For the servers, I like to use an active backup server. Only the data
gets synchronized with rsync, rdist, rcp and similar software. If the
main server is having a bad day, users simply point to the backup
server and blunder onward. The backup server is usually in a
different part of the building or off-site (in case of fire). Some of
these also have a tape drive, which I use sparingly.
William Sommerwerck
>> backed up to. So that, in theory, would pretty much eliminate the
>> possibility of simultaneous failure.
> Only if it's a different maker, model, or lot number drive. Read my
> rant again. One issue that I listed was having two identical drives,
> one spinning, the other just sitting on the shelf, fail roughly
> simultaneously.
Ouch.
> That can happen if the failure is caused by IC
> package leakage, board contamination, tin whiskers, or divine
> irritation. I only saw this problem once, so I suspect it's rather
> unusual. Still, it's something to worry about. These daze, I avoid
> running backups to identical drives out of paranoia.
When I bought my current computer in 2001, I bought two identical drives,
and periodically backed up to the second. As I could not, at that time, make
a bootable backup, there was no problem with it running all the time, and I
even added a swap file to the second drive.
Several years ago, when W2K "collapsed" (for unknown reasons), I found that
the backup drive would no longer format. (I don't know why.) The main drive
was put aside, and I suspect it would work if I installed it. (Other than
the time lost reinstalling W2K and the applications, I lost nothing.)
It's frightening when you hear stories of hard drives failing nearly
simultaneously. I've been buying Seagates simply because they have a 5-year
warranty, and I'm not likely to change.
If one of my bootable drives failed, I would immediately (same day) purchase
a replacement and copy the backup drive to it, making the new drive the
primary drive.
> Actually, what I'm currently doing for desktops is probably equally
> dangerous. After about 4 years running, I buy a bigger|better|faster
> drive, mirror the contents of the old drive to the new drive, and then
> use the old drive for backups. In other words, pre-emptive
> replacement.
What's dangerous about that? Considering how cheap hard drives are, it makes
perfect sense. If you buy two $60 drives every four years, that's $30 a
year -- 60 cents a week. That is cheap protection, and even cheaper
peace-of-mind.
Adrian C
> http://www.worldrecordsacademy.
> org/technology/longest-burning_light_bulb_The_Centennial_Light_sets_world_reco
> rd_80242.htm
>
> Heres the address if you want to see in person
> 4550 East Ave., Livermore, CA
Or view it remotely from a web cam
http://www.centennialbulb.org/cam.htm
This could start a religion.
"May the Blessings of the Centennial light bulb Almighty, and the
Fellowship of the Holy Illumination, descend upon us all. This day and
forever more."
--
Rev. Adrian Centennial light bulb
Peter Hucker
Use RAID 6. You have TWO redundancies. And you can add some hotswaps too.
As they say at Microsoft - "What do you want to reinstall today?"
Peter Hucker
I'm buying an Areca controller (PCI express 8x, takes 4 SATA drives, 256MB cache/buffer). It's $500. But its performace (on graphs at Tom's Hardware) is astronomical.
A group of cowboys were branding some cattle.
While they were out the cook saw a sheep tied to a post. Thinking it was for that nights dinner he cooked it.
That night after dinner the cowboys were all sulking and ignoring the cook. He pulled one aside and asked, "Did I screw up the cooking?"
"No", the cowboy replied, "You cooked up the screwing."
Peter Hucker
Or fire. Or theft.
The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a twisted sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of pals out there. Type in "Find people that have sex with goats that are on fire" and the computer will say "Specify type of goat." -- Rich Jeni
Peter Hucker
I'm lazy, I get another computer to backup the main one every night.
You know you're a redneck when......
1. You take your dog for a walk and you both use the same tree.
2. You can entertain yourself for more than 15 minutes with a fly swatter.
3. Your boat has not left the driveway in 15 years.
4. You burn your yard rather than mow it.
5. You think "The Nutcracker" is something you do off the high dive.
6. The Salvation Army declines your furniture.
7.You offer to give someon! e the shirt off your back and they don't want it
8. You have the local taxidermist on speed dial.
9. You come back from the dump with more than you took.
10. You keep a can of Raid on the kitchen table.
11. Your wife can climb a tree faster than your cat.
12. Your grandmother has "ammo" on her Christmas list.
13. You keep flea and tick soap in the shower.
14. You've been involved in a custody fight over a hunting dog.
15. You go to the stock car races and don't need a program.
16. You know how many bales of hay your car will hold.
17. You have a rag for a gas cap.
18. Your house doesn't have curtains, but your truck does.
19. You wonder how service stations keep their rest-room's so clean.
20. You can spit without opening your mouth.
21. You consider your license plate personalized because your father made it.
22. Your lifetime goal is to own a fireworks stand.
23. You have a complete set of salad bowls and they all say "Cool Whip" on the side.
24. The biggest city you've ever been to is Wal-Mart.
25. Your working TV sits on top of your non-working TV.
26. You've used your ironing board as a buffet table.
27. A tornado hits your neighborhood and does $100,000 worth of improvements.
28. You've used a toilet brush to scratch your back.
29. You missed your 5th grade graduation because you were on jury duty.
30. You think fast food is hitting a deer at 65.
Clint Sharp
Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes
>I read this recently elsewhere, and find it very hard to believe that two
>drives -- even identical ones purchased at the same time -- would fail
>essentially simultaneously.
>
>
reaction from the owners as you just had.
If it didn't happen why would there be companies specialising in data
recovery from failed RAID sets?
Don't forget if you have a mirror set it doesn't have to be a drive
failure, if your data gets corrupted you're still toast because the
corruption is faithfully mirrored too.
RAID is not a replacement for a good backup and your backup is only as
good as the last time you did a test restore.
--
Clint Sharp
krw
says...>
>
> > In message <gfekjg$31i$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, William
> > Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes
> >> My next computer will have integral RAID, and I won't have to manually back
> >> up again, ever. (Except possibly Really Important stuff, just to be safe.)
> > With respect William, part of my job is recovering data off
> > failed/corrupted RAID sets. Do not rely on RAID to keep your data safe,
> > if the chances of two disks failing in a RAID 5 set then I must be the
> > luckiest (they weren't my RAID sets) man alive because I've seen it
> > dozens of times in the past 5 years. If you value your data then back it
> > up somewhere safe.
>
> Use RAID 6. You have TWO redundancies.
Still doesn't protect you from the loose nut behind the keyboard.
> And you can add some hotswaps too.
That's essentially a backup scheme, not significantly different
than cloning drives.
--
Keith
Peter Hucker
Never used a hotswap, but I'm assuming that they are idle empty drives which will automatically take over any other which fails.
The waitress was tired of this one patron always hitting on
her, so she came up with a plan.
"I'll tell ya what, stud. I'll have sex with ya on two conditions.
First, it'll cost ya 50 bucks. Second, you have to guarantee
me that bells will ring and lights will flash."
He smiled, handed her $50 and led her over to the pinball
machine.
krw
says...>
>
> > In article <op.ukmf5...@fx62.mshome.net>, no...@spam.com
> > says...>
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:44:19 -0000, Clint Sharp <cl...@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In message <gfekjg$31i$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, William
> >> > Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes
> >> >> My next computer will have integral RAID, and I won't have to manually back
> >> >> up again, ever. (Except possibly Really Important stuff, just to be safe.)
> >> > With respect William, part of my job is recovering data off
> >> > failed/corrupted RAID sets. Do not rely on RAID to keep your data safe,
> >> > if the chances of two disks failing in a RAID 5 set then I must be the
> >> > luckiest (they weren't my RAID sets) man alive because I've seen it
> >> > dozens of times in the past 5 years. If you value your data then back it
> >> > up somewhere safe.
> >>
> >> Use RAID 6. You have TWO redundancies.
> >
> > Still doesn't protect you from the loose nut behind the keyboard.
> >
> >> And you can add some hotswaps too.
> >
> > That's essentially a backup scheme, not significantly different
> > than cloning drives.
>
> Never used a hotswap, but I'm assuming that they are idle empty drives which will automatically take over any other which fails.
No, they're cold standbys that can be "swapped in" with power on
("hot"). RAID ("mirrors") will take over automatically on failure,
but again, they don't solve the "loose nut" problem.
One of the simple solutions is to have a mirrored setup with
additional mirror drives left off-line. To do a backup, one
connects one of the off-line drives and the system builds a
"clone" of the original drive on the "backup" drive. Then take
that drive off line and put it out of the reach of the loose nut
(fire, system crash, whatever). TO restore the system, simply
reconnect the mirrored drive and rebuild the system drive as a
mirror of the "backup" drive.
I do something functionally the same, but don't use RAID of any
sort. I back up my laptop (using the supplied utility) once a week
to a USB drive that's online whenever I'm docked (also used for
music archives, etc.), then copy that drive to another USB drive
once in a while.
--
Keith
Peter Hucker
Err.... so how does that differ from me having several spare drives sat on the shelf that I can put in when required? I thought the idea was these were put online AUTOMATICALLY. The option I saw to add a hotswap on one of my raid controllers seemed to imply that I'd set up one of the drives that was plugged in to be one.
Correction - I meant to write a hot SPARE, not a hot SWAP.
> RAID ("mirrors") will take over automatically on failure,
> but again, they don't solve the "loose nut" problem.
>
> One of the simple solutions is to have a mirrored setup with
> additional mirror drives left off-line. To do a backup, one
> connects one of the off-line drives and the system builds a
> "clone" of the original drive on the "backup" drive. Then take
> that drive off line and put it out of the reach of the loose nut
> (fire, system crash, whatever). TO restore the system, simply
> reconnect the mirrored drive and rebuild the system drive as a
> mirror of the "backup" drive.
That's a good idea. Although I wouldn't do it with a cheapo onboard controller. Those things fall over sometimes when drives "fail".
Trouble is, the machine I'm about to build is planned to have 4 drives in a RAID 5 array for speed aswell as resilience. How would I back this up in that manner? I suppose I'd need 8 drives - a mirrored RAID 5?
> I do something functionally the same, but don't use RAID of any
> sort. I back up my laptop (using the supplied utility) once a week
> to a USB drive that's online whenever I'm docked (also used for
> music archives, etc.), then copy that drive to another USB drive
> once in a while.
I have three machines on a network on all the time. So the main one is backed up to the other two automatically every night. Every so often I use a USB drive to dump one of the backup copies onto and hide it out of reach of the computers.
Money can't buy you true love.
It does however put you in a good bargaining position.
krw
(Your word wrap is broken.)
> Err.... so how does that differ from me having several spare drives
> sat on the shelf that I can put in when required? I thought the
> idea was these were put online AUTOMATICALLY. The option I saw
> to add a hotswap on one of my raid controllers seemed to imply
> that I'd set up one of the drives that was plugged in to be one.
No, "hot swap" has nothing to do with backup. If you have spare
drives sitting on the shelf they're not much use when your data goes
away. You *can* use the hot-swap feature with a RAID array to do a
backup by having the array perform the mirror then unplug the drive
and stick it on the shelf. By itself, hot-swap doesn't do anything
for you.
> Correction - I meant to write a hot SPARE, not a hot SWAP.
Why would your spare need to be "hot"? I think we're talking past
each other...
> > RAID ("mirrors") will take over automatically on failure,
> > but again, they don't solve the "loose nut" problem.
> >
> > One of the simple solutions is to have a mirrored setup with
> > additional mirror drives left off-line. To do a backup, one
> > connects one of the off-line drives and the system builds a
> > "clone" of the original drive on the "backup" drive. Then take
> > that drive off line and put it out of the reach of the loose nut
> > (fire, system crash, whatever). TO restore the system, simply
> > reconnect the mirrored drive and rebuild the system drive as a
> > mirror of the "backup" drive.
>
> That's a good idea. Although I wouldn't do it with a cheapo onboard
> controller. Those things fall over sometimes when drives "fail".
Huh? "Cheapo" RAID controllers are nothing more than *ATA ports.
If a drive fails you still have the other. With "my" proposal you
still have one "hot" and another, with the backup data, sitting on
the shelf. The *ATA controllers haven't gone anywhere.
> Trouble is, the machine I'm about to build is planned to have 4
> drives in a RAID 5 array for speed aswell as resilience. How
> would I back this up in that manner? I suppose I'd need 8
> drives - a mirrored RAID 5?
Don't do RAID-5. If you want speed do Raid 1/0. You're going to
need two drives for the striped pair though. I wouldn't run a
striped set though. Too much risk with too little gain.
> > I do something functionally the same, but don't use RAID of any
> > sort. I back up my laptop (using the supplied utility) once a week
> > to a USB drive that's online whenever I'm docked (also used for
> > music archives, etc.), then copy that drive to another USB drive
> > once in a while.
>
> I have three machines on a network on all the time. So the main one
> is backed up to the other two automatically every night. Every so
> often I use a USB drive to dump one of the backup copies onto and
> hide it out of reach of the computers.
We have two systems (our laptops) that get backed up to USB drives.
The desktop never gets backed up (nothing important ever gets put on
it). I don't lose sleep over losing data and can't be bothered with
the network.
--
Keith
Jeff Liebermann
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Actually, what I'm currently doing for desktops is probably equally
>> dangerous. After about 4 years running, I buy a bigger|better|faster
>> drive, mirror the contents of the old drive to the new drive, and then
>> use the old drive for backups. In other words, pre-emptive
>> replacement.
>What's dangerous about that? Considering how cheap hard drives are, it makes
>perfect sense. If you buy two $60 drives every four years, that's $30 a
>year -- 60 cents a week. That is cheap protection, and even cheaper
>peace-of-mind.
I haven't counted for a while, but I think I have about 50 customers
(those that call for work more than once per year) involving about 150
machines. Pre-emptive drive replacement has totally prevented drive
failures, and the attendent all night restore session. However, it
also has produced in a rather motly collection of "used" drives,
mostly 10 thru 40GBytes. They still work, but being past their prime,
they're not suitable for use in a customers machine. I use them for
backups, but that's also risky if I run into one of those failures
that isn't dependent on running the drive. With 4 years runtime on
these drives, they're sure to fail within about 2-3 years of normal
use. I sell a few, with the usual disclaimer and non-warranty, but
after having to deal with a few irate former friends, I just stockpile
them. Anything where S.M.A.R.T. shows a climbing error rate, gets
recycled.
William Sommerwerck
>> are, it makes perfect sense. If you buy two $60 drives every four
>> years, that's $30 a year -- 60 cents a week. That is cheap protection,
>> and even cheaper peace-of-mind.
> I haven't counted for a while, but I think I have about 50 customers
> (those that call for work more than once per year) involving about 150
> machines. Pre-emptive drive replacement has totally prevented drive
> failures, and the attendent all night restore session. However, it
> also has produced in a rather motly collection of "used" drives,
> mostly 10 thru 40GBytes. They still work, but being past their prime,
> they're not suitable for use in a customers machine. I use them for
> backups, but that's also risky if I run into one of those failures
> that isn't dependent on running the drive. With 4 years runtime on
> these drives, they're sure to fail within about 2-3 years of normal
> use. I sell a few, with the usual disclaimer and non-warranty, but
> after having to deal with a few irate former friends, I just stockpile
> them. Anything where S.M.A.R.T. shows a climbing error rate, gets
> recycled.
How does one access the S.M.A.R.T. data? (You don't need to explain, just
point.)
I was planning on making my initial installation of XP on a lightly used
drive I'd put a "vanilla" installation of 2000 on, so I could de-crap my
regular drive of malware. (I don't know how I was able to boot them
simultaneously without screwing up things, but I did.) Perhaps I'll just buy
a new drive right off the bat, and when XP is fully installed, get a second
drive.
Peter Hucker
YOU wrap it. I don't kow the width of your monitor.
>> Err.... so how does that differ from me having several spare drives
>> sat on the shelf that I can put in when required? I thought the
>> idea was these were put online AUTOMATICALLY. The option I saw
>> to add a hotswap on one of my raid controllers seemed to imply
>> that I'd set up one of the drives that was plugged in to be one.
>
> No, "hot swap" has nothing to do with backup. If you have spare
> drives sitting on the shelf they're not much use when your data goes
> away. You *can* use the hot-swap feature with a RAID array to do a
> backup by having the array perform the mirror then unplug the drive
> and stick it on the shelf. By itself, hot-swap doesn't do anything
> for you.
>
>> Correction - I meant to write a hot SPARE, not a hot SWAP.
>
> Why would your spare need to be "hot"? I think we're talking past
> each other...
I assume it's a drive which the system can bring into play as needed, immediately one fails.
>> > RAID ("mirrors") will take over automatically on failure,
>> > but again, they don't solve the "loose nut" problem.
>> >
>> > One of the simple solutions is to have a mirrored setup with
>> > additional mirror drives left off-line. To do a backup, one
>> > connects one of the off-line drives and the system builds a
>> > "clone" of the original drive on the "backup" drive. Then take
>> > that drive off line and put it out of the reach of the loose nut
>> > (fire, system crash, whatever). TO restore the system, simply
>> > reconnect the mirrored drive and rebuild the system drive as a
>> > mirror of the "backup" drive.
>>
>> That's a good idea. Although I wouldn't do it with a cheapo onboard
>> controller. Those things fall over sometimes when drives "fail".
>
> Huh? "Cheapo" RAID controllers are nothing more than *ATA ports.
> If a drive fails you still have the other.
If they were nothing more than *ATA ports, you couldn't make a RAID array with them.
> With "my" proposal you
> still have one "hot" and another, with the backup data, sitting on
> the shelf. The *ATA controllers haven't gone anywhere.
My point is I've (more than once) seen ONE drive fail, then the controller is incapable of using a degraded array and corrupts everything.
>> Trouble is, the machine I'm about to build is planned to have 4
>> drives in a RAID 5 array for speed aswell as resilience. How
>> would I back this up in that manner? I suppose I'd need 8
>> drives - a mirrored RAID 5?
>
> Don't do RAID-5. If you want speed do Raid 1/0. You're going to
> need two drives for the striped pair though. I wouldn't run a
> striped set though. Too much risk with too little gain.
Do you mean RAID 1+0? As in a striped mirror? Why would this be faster than a RAID 5?
>> > I do something functionally the same, but don't use RAID of any
>> > sort. I back up my laptop (using the supplied utility) once a week
>> > to a USB drive that's online whenever I'm docked (also used for
>> > music archives, etc.), then copy that drive to another USB drive
>> > once in a while.
>>
>> I have three machines on a network on all the time. So the main one
>> is backed up to the other two automatically every night. Every so
>> often I use a USB drive to dump one of the backup copies onto and
>> hide it out of reach of the computers.
>
> We have two systems (our laptops) that get backed up to USB drives.
> The desktop never gets backed up (nothing important ever gets put on
> it). I don't lose sleep over losing data and can't be bothered with
> the network.
The network is automatic. It's no hassle at all once it's set up.
A Russian, an American, and a Blonde were talking one day.
The Russian said, "We were the first in space!"
The American said, "We were the first on the moon!"
The Blonde said, "So what? We're going to be the first on the sun!"
The Russian and the American looked at each other and shook their heads.
"You can't land on the sun, you idiot! You'll burn up!" said the Russian.
To which the Blonde replied, "We're not stupid, you know. We're going at night!"
Jeff Liebermann
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>How does one access the S.M.A.R.T. data? (You don't need to explain, just
>point.)
I use a Windoze program called "SpeedFan". (Click on the SMART tab):
<http://www.almico.com/sfscreenshots.php>
It produces a gorgeous web page report, warning of impending doom,
that's suitable for shoving down the customers throat.
<http://www.almico.com/sfarticle.php?id=2>
For Linux, I use SmartmonTools:
<http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net>
<http://gsmartcontrol.berlios.de>
which is more detailed, but kinda messy.
The easy way to test older drives is with a USB to IDE (or SATA)
adapter. For 3.5" drives, you need to supply power to the drive. I
can run through a mess of drives in literally minutes by simply
plugging and unplugging the USB cable, while swapping drives. Much
easier than trying to test drives inside the machine.
Note that some drives report garbage or lies for S.M.A.R.T. I don't
want to post my list of suspected culprits. Just note that any drive
that reports absolute perfection, that's also obviously old, is lying.
>I was planning on making my initial installation of XP on a lightly used
>drive I'd put a "vanilla" installation of 2000 on, so I could de-crap my
>regular drive of malware. (I don't know how I was able to boot them
>simultaneously without screwing up things, but I did.) Perhaps I'll just buy
>a new drive right off the bat, and when XP is fully installed, get a second
>drive.
Careful with the 2nd drive. If it's the slave off a different model
IDE master drive, the slave sometimes runs slower, or slows down the
main drive. Run some drive benchmarks on the main drive alone, and
then with the slave attached. A 2nd external (USB) drive is just
fine. Get an external case and you have a tolerable "backup" drive.
krw
says...
No, the standard is to wrap it at something less than 80 chars. Not
wrapping text is *rude*.
> >> Err.... so how does that differ from me having several spare drives
> >> sat on the shelf that I can put in when required? I thought the
> >> idea was these were put online AUTOMATICALLY. The option I saw
> >> to add a hotswap on one of my raid controllers seemed to imply
> >> that I'd set up one of the drives that was plugged in to be one.
> >
> > No, "hot swap" has nothing to do with backup. If you have spare
> > drives sitting on the shelf they're not much use when your data goes
> > away. You *can* use the hot-swap feature with a RAID array to do a
> > backup by having the array perform the mirror then unplug the drive
> > and stick it on the shelf. By itself, hot-swap doesn't do anything
> > for you.
> >
> >> Correction - I meant to write a hot SPARE, not a hot SWAP.
> >
> > Why would your spare need to be "hot"? I think we're talking past
> > each other...
>
> I assume it's a drive which the system can bring into play as needed, immediately one fails.
Hot swap simply means that another can be brought on line while the
system is powered on. It doesn't mean the drive has anything on it.
Mirroring is a method of putting the backup data on the drive.
> >> > RAID ("mirrors") will take over automatically on failure,
> >> > but again, they don't solve the "loose nut" problem.
> >> >
> >> > One of the simple solutions is to have a mirrored setup with
> >> > additional mirror drives left off-line. To do a backup, one
> >> > connects one of the off-line drives and the system builds a
> >> > "clone" of the original drive on the "backup" drive. Then take
> >> > that drive off line and put it out of the reach of the loose nut
> >> > (fire, system crash, whatever). TO restore the system, simply
> >> > reconnect the mirrored drive and rebuild the system drive as a
> >> > mirror of the "backup" drive.
> >>
> >> That's a good idea. Although I wouldn't do it with a cheapo onboard
> >> controller. Those things fall over sometimes when drives "fail".
> >
> > Huh? "Cheapo" RAID controllers are nothing more than *ATA ports.
> > If a drive fails you still have the other.
>
> If they were nothing more than *ATA ports, you couldn't make a RAID array with them.
Wrong. Ever hear of "software"? Every one of those RAID
controllers is nothing more than an ATA port and some software. Some
had the software in a ROM, but not that's not common anymore. Often
the OS ships with the necessary drivers. The hardware is nothing
but an *ATA port though.
> > With "my" proposal you
> > still have one "hot" and another, with the backup data, sitting on
> > the shelf. The *ATA controllers haven't gone anywhere.
>
> My point is I've (more than once) seen ONE drive fail, then the controller is incapable of using a degraded array and corrupts everything.
With striping I can believe this. If it's mirrored simply use the
other drive (not stored in the system).
> >> Trouble is, the machine I'm about to build is planned to have 4
> >> drives in a RAID 5 array for speed aswell as resilience. How
> >> would I back this up in that manner? I suppose I'd need 8
> >> drives - a mirrored RAID 5?
> >
> > Don't do RAID-5. If you want speed do Raid 1/0. You're going to
> > need two drives for the striped pair though. I wouldn't run a
> > striped set though. Too much risk with too little gain.
>
> Do you mean RAID 1+0? As in a striped mirror? Why would this be faster than a RAID 5?
Yes, call it whatever you want. RAID-5 requires work to do the
redundancy. Mirroring requires little CPU overhead. It's just
stuffing bits.
> >> > I do something functionally the same, but don't use RAID of any
> >> > sort. I back up my laptop (using the supplied utility) once a week
> >> > to a USB drive that's online whenever I'm docked (also used for
> >> > music archives, etc.), then copy that drive to another USB drive
> >> > once in a while.
> >>
> >> I have three machines on a network on all the time. So the main one
> >> is backed up to the other two automatically every night. Every so
> >> often I use a USB drive to dump one of the backup copies onto and
> >> hide it out of reach of the computers.
> >
> > We have two systems (our laptops) that get backed up to USB drives.
> > The desktop never gets backed up (nothing important ever gets put on
> > it). I don't lose sleep over losing data and can't be bothered with
> > the network.
>
> The network is automatic. It's no hassle at all once it's set up.
Nothing is "automatic". It requires management. Too much bother
when IDE drives are *cheap*.
--
Keith
Peter Hucker
Not a lot of people still have 80 column screens. Yours might be 120 for example. Your software should wrap my text at 120. If you make the window a bit smaller, it'll wrap to 100, etc. Even Notepad can wrap to window!!!
>> >> Err.... so how does that differ from me having several spare drives
>> >> sat on the shelf that I can put in when required? I thought the
>> >> idea was these were put online AUTOMATICALLY. The option I saw
>> >> to add a hotswap on one of my raid controllers seemed to imply
>> >> that I'd set up one of the drives that was plugged in to be one.
>> >
>> > No, "hot swap" has nothing to do with backup. If you have spare
>> > drives sitting on the shelf they're not much use when your data goes
>> > away. You *can* use the hot-swap feature with a RAID array to do a
>> > backup by having the array perform the mirror then unplug the drive
>> > and stick it on the shelf. By itself, hot-swap doesn't do anything
>> > for you.
>> >
>> >> Correction - I meant to write a hot SPARE, not a hot SWAP.
>> >
>> > Why would your spare need to be "hot"? I think we're talking past
>> > each other...
>>
>> I assume it's a drive which the system can bring into play as needed, immediately one fails.
>
> Hot swap simply means that another can be brought on line while the
> system is powered on. It doesn't mean the drive has anything on it.
But it gives you added protection, because as soon as one drive fails, the hotswap drive is brought into use, not when you notice it and physically put one in.
> Mirroring is a method of putting the backup data on the drive.
>
>> >> > RAID ("mirrors") will take over automatically on failure,
>> >> > but again, they don't solve the "loose nut" problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > One of the simple solutions is to have a mirrored setup with
>> >> > additional mirror drives left off-line. To do a backup, one
>> >> > connects one of the off-line drives and the system builds a
>> >> > "clone" of the original drive on the "backup" drive. Then take
>> >> > that drive off line and put it out of the reach of the loose nut
>> >> > (fire, system crash, whatever). TO restore the system, simply
>> >> > reconnect the mirrored drive and rebuild the system drive as a
>> >> > mirror of the "backup" drive.
>> >>
>> >> That's a good idea. Although I wouldn't do it with a cheapo onboard
>> >> controller. Those things fall over sometimes when drives "fail".
>> >
>> > Huh? "Cheapo" RAID controllers are nothing more than *ATA ports.
>> > If a drive fails you still have the other.
>>
>> If they were nothing more than *ATA ports, you couldn't make a RAID array with them.
>
> Wrong. Ever hear of "software"? Every one of those RAID
> controllers is nothing more than an ATA port and some software. Some
> had the software in a ROM, but not that's not common anymore. Often
> the OS ships with the necessary drivers. The hardware is nothing
> but an *ATA port though.
If it was entirely OS software, booting the OS would be impossible.
>> > With "my" proposal you
>> > still have one "hot" and another, with the backup data, sitting on
>> > the shelf. The *ATA controllers haven't gone anywhere.
>>
>> My point is I've (more than once) seen ONE drive fail, then the controller is incapable of using a degraded array and corrupts everything.
>
> With striping I can believe this. If it's mirrored simply use the
> other drive (not stored in the system).
They were RAID 5 arrays.
>> >> Trouble is, the machine I'm about to build is planned to have 4
>> >> drives in a RAID 5 array for speed aswell as resilience. How
>> >> would I back this up in that manner? I suppose I'd need 8
>> >> drives - a mirrored RAID 5?
>> >
>> > Don't do RAID-5. If you want speed do Raid 1/0. You're going to
>> > need two drives for the striped pair though. I wouldn't run a
>> > striped set though. Too much risk with too little gain.
>>
>> Do you mean RAID 1+0? As in a striped mirror? Why would this be faster than a RAID 5?
>
> Yes, call it whatever you want. RAID-5 requires work to do the
> redundancy. Mirroring requires little CPU overhead. It's just
> stuffing bits.
Perhaps. But consider my new system - I want 4 hard disks. If I use RAID 1+0, then when writing, I'm splitting the drive's work by a factor of 2. When reading I'm splitting it by a factor of 4. If I use RAID 5, when writing I'm splitting the drive's work by a factor of 3, when reading I'm splitting the work by a factor of 3. Depends whether reading is more important than writing.
Also I get 50% more capacity. Which also means the data I store will be closer together on the platters, speeding the drives' seek time up.
I've just looked up some graphs and it appears 1+0 is the best way for performance. The parity calculations are perhaps the problem like you said.
The question I now have is.... if I'm using 1+0, there's no calculations to do, so is there any advantage to me getting a powerful raid controller card, or will the onboard controller do just as well?
I've just checked, and it appear it does support 1+0 (some don't). http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/matrixstorage_sb.htm
>> >> > I do something functionally the same, but don't use RAID of any
>> >> > sort. I back up my laptop (using the supplied utility) once a week
>> >> > to a USB drive that's online whenever I'm docked (also used for
>> >> > music archives, etc.), then copy that drive to another USB drive
>> >> > once in a while.
>> >>
>> >> I have three machines on a network on all the time. So the main one
>> >> is backed up to the other two automatically every night. Every so
>> >> often I use a USB drive to dump one of the backup copies onto and
>> >> hide it out of reach of the computers.
>> >
>> > We have two systems (our laptops) that get backed up to USB drives.
>> > The desktop never gets backed up (nothing important ever gets put on
>> > it). I don't lose sleep over losing data and can't be bothered with
>> > the network.
>>
>> The network is automatic. It's no hassle at all once it's set up.
>
> Nothing is "automatic". It requires management. Too much bother
> when IDE drives are *cheap*.
It requires management ONCE when I set up the schedule. From then on it does it at 3am every night, without my intervention.
Caution: Always engage brain before operating mouth.
krw
Don't be an asshole. It runs it right off the right edge. I'm not
going to clean up your mess again. If you can't conform to the
minimal Usenet standards, you aren't worth speaking with. *PLONK*
--
Keith
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
Failing Hard Drive Sounds:
<http://datacent.com/hard_drive_sounds.php>
bz
news:op.ukodh...@fx62.mshome.net:
>> No, the standard is to wrap it at something less than 80 chars. Not
>> wrapping text is *rude*.
>
> Not a lot of people still have 80 column screens.
Doesn't matter. See below.
> Yours might be 120
> for example. Your software should wrap my text at 120. If you make the
> window a bit smaller, it'll wrap to 100, etc. Even Notepad can wrap to
> window!!!
>
There is a problem with people that insist that THEY have a special
dispensation to violate long established rules of the road, like the long
established usenet rule of the road that says 'thou shalt wrap thine text
at less than 76 before you rap on usenet, otherwise other usenet users will
consider you a kook and will soon cease to see anything you post because
you will earn a permanent place in their killfiles.'
[quote from http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php ]
Make sure your lines are no longer than 72 to 76 characters in length.
Once again, you can't assume that all e-mail and news clients behave like
yours, and while yours might wrap lines automatically when the text reaches
the right of the window containing it, not all do.
....try and imagine how people will feel about your messages if they are
nothing but a succession of ... lines which spread off the screen.
Enough said...
If your mailer/newsreader doesn't wrap outgoing messages then at least have
the courtesy to do so manually before sending your message off.
[unquote]
Being courteous costs little and adds to the happiness in the world.
Remember that NOTHING said on usenet is ever lost.
Every smart and dumb thing we ever post is out there somewhere.
Being rude might bring YOU a little pleasure but it brings unhappiness to
others. Trolls enjoy being rude and the reactions being rude bring.
Is that _really_ what you want to do? Is that how you want future
generations to remember you?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Michael A. Terrell
He is a troll, so that's exactly how he wants to be remembered.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
Peter Hucker
It runs off the right edge because your shoddy software isn't wrapping it. Open any word processor and start typing. Keep going till you come towards the edge. Tell me what happens next.
"Good morning, ma'am, I've come to ask for collections, for the Salvation Army," said the man in the bright red Santa suit to the woman who opened the door wearing nothing but panties and a see-through negligee.
"How do I know that?" the young woman replied. "How do I know you're really with the Salvation Army? How do I know you aren't some sex fiend who has come to take advantage of a poor, defenseless female who's all alone in her house ... and will be until 5:30 this evening?"
Peter Hucker
> "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> wrote in
> news:op.ukodh...@fx62.mshome.net:
>
>>> No, the standard is to wrap it at something less than 80 chars. Not
>>> wrapping text is *rude*.
>>
>> Not a lot of people still have 80 column screens.
>
> Doesn't matter. See below.
>
>> Yours might be 120
>> for example. Your software should wrap my text at 120. If you make the
>> window a bit smaller, it'll wrap to 100, etc. Even Notepad can wrap to
>> window!!!
>>
>
> There is a problem with people that insist that THEY have a special
> dispensation to violate long established rules of the road, like the long
> established usenet rule of the road that says 'thou shalt wrap thine text
> at less than 76 before you rap on usenet, otherwise other usenet users will
> consider you a kook and will soon cease to see anything you post because
> you will earn a permanent place in their killfiles.'
>
> [quote from http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php ]
>
> Make sure your lines are no longer than 72 to 76 characters in length.
>
> Once again, you can't assume that all e-mail and news clients behave like
> yours, and while yours might wrap lines automatically when the text reaches
> the right of the window containing it, not all do.
If Windows Notepad can wrap, so can any email client. It's not rocket Science. My ZX Spectrum used to do it for christ's sake.
The subway car was packed. It was rush hour, and many people were forced to stand.
One particularly cramped woman turned to the man behind her and said,
"Sir, if you don't stop poking me with your thing, I'm going to the cops!"
"I don't know what you're talking about miss - that's just my pay check in my pocket."
"Oh really" she spat.
"Then you must have some job, because that's the fifth raise you've had in the last half hour."
krw
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu says...
> "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> wrote in
> news:op.ukodh...@fx62.mshome.net:
>
> >> No, the standard is to wrap it at something less than 80 chars. Not
> >> wrapping text is *rude*.
> >
> > Not a lot of people still have 80 column screens.
Not many have 1k character screens, nor the desire to try to read
fish food that long.
<snip>
> Is that _really_ what you want to do? Is that how you want future
> generations to remember you?
Trolls like to cause trouble. It's clear this troll feels no desire
to make his readers' lives easier (note the same attitude among top-
posters). As with everything he's ever done in his life, he failed.
My life is easier without another Europeon troll.
--
Keith
Peter Hucker
> In article <Xns9B5864910B1D0WQ...@130.39.198.139>,
> bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu says...
>> "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> wrote in
>> news:op.ukodh...@fx62.mshome.net:
>>
>> >> No, the standard is to wrap it at something less than 80 chars. Not
>> >> wrapping text is *rude*.
>> >
>> > Not a lot of people still have 80 column screens.
>
>
> Not many have 1k character screens, nor the desire to try to read
> fish food that long.
If your computer is bright enough to wrap to window, the monitor can be ANY width.
> <snip>
>
>> Is that _really_ what you want to do? Is that how you want future
>> generations to remember you?
>
> Trolls like to cause trouble. It's clear this troll feels no desire
> to make his readers' lives easier (note the same attitude among top-
> posters). As with everything he's ever done in his life, he failed.
> My life is easier without another Europeon troll.
Typical American. Because I'm in Europe, that must be the reason for everything.
A woman goes to England to attend a 2-week, company training session. Her husband drives her to the airport and wishes her to have a good trip.
The wife answers, "Thank you honey, what would you like me to bring for you?"
The husband laughs and says, "An English girl!"
The woman kept quiet and left.
Two weeks later he picks her up in the airport and asks, "So, honey, how was the trip?"
"Very good, thank you".
"And, what happened to my present?".
"Which present?"
"What I asked for. The English girl!"
"Oh, that? Well, I did what I could. Now we have to wait a few months to see if it is a girl."