experchange > linux.embedded

7 (11-08-14, 01:00 AM)
Time to abandon large mechanical hard drives?
---------------------------------------------

I did 4TB upgrade to 6TB and the whole process
of backing up and fixing partitions took best part
of half a day with Linux.

Never heard of such things.

But I remember back in May I did a 3TB to 4TB upgrade
and it took best part of half a day with Linux as well.

So these numbers seem to be real.

(With windoops, you may as well reserve one or two
weeks to do same feat ;) )

That was all done with dd and gparted.
The dd alone took 30,000 seconds with 150MB/sec
transfer rate.

These numbers are going back to the bad old days of
windopws when whole working days can be lost from
a minor disk mishap.

With these sorts of bottleneck delays hitting Linux,
there is potential to loose 2 working days with a disk mishap.
Thats several thousand dollars per incident minimum.

Time now me thinks to ditch mechanical hard drives
and go full on with SSDs for big storage.

The only thing standing in the way is high price
SSD storage. Also the effort to make larger
commercial SSDs a little weak.

Samsung and Sandisk aiming for 3 and 4 TB disks
soon but what the market needs is 6 and 8 TB
disks as commodity item.

China has ramped its production from commodity
quantity 16GB SSDs to 64GB for same price in
under 1 year. If they keep the momentum,
the 256GB SSD would become available for
similar price next year. That would then
be the signal to produce 6 to 8 TB drives
at affordable prices.

Their speeds also has to improve with
faster sustained throughput using
more parallel channel based interfaces
custom built by some Linux fans familiar
with FPGAs and Linux drivers.
The controllers also need improving.
May be they need to become big ARM
chips running full blow Linux to
manage these TB flash memory chips? :)
David Brown (11-08-14, 02:39 PM)
On 08/11/14 00:00, 7 wrote:
> Time to abandon large mechanical hard drives?
> ---------------------------------------------
> I did 4TB upgrade to 6TB and the whole process
> of backing up and fixing partitions took best part
> of half a day with Linux.
> Never heard of such things.


Learn to use raid - either mdraid or btrfs with raid. Upgrading or
replacing disks then needs only a little effort as you swap drives
(perhaps powering off if you don't have hot swapping) - all the copying
is done in the background, while the system is still working.
7 (11-08-14, 10:00 PM)
David Brown wrote:

> Learn to use raid


Do you mean learn to ditch raid?

Thats the only thing I have learned so far about raid.

Cheaper to back up everything on to a 3TB disk
and file it every month than any other option.

In all these years, I don't know of one situation
where raid saved the day. All that the numerous
installs of raid I have ever seen is make an
already bad situation 1000% worse.
flatfish+++ (11-08-14, 10:07 PM)
On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 20:00:30 +0000, 7 wrote:

> David Brown wrote:
> Do you mean learn to ditch raid?
> Thats the only thing I have learned so far about raid.
> Cheaper to back up everything on to a 3TB disk
> and file it every month than any other option.
> In all these years, I don't know of one situation
> where raid saved the day. All that the numerous
> installs of raid I have ever seen is make an
> already bad situation 1000% worse.


The only Raid you are likely to encounter is the can of Raid at the
local fast food joint where you man the deep fry machine, 7 = Joseph
Michael.

I'm certain you are familiar with this Raid:

7 (11-08-14, 10:14 PM)
flatfish+++ wrote:

> T


Internet trolls like you have no clear comprehension of technology.

Still, you can read the original post again and
weep if you must:

> Learn to use raid


Do you mean learn to ditch raid?

Thats the only thing I have learned so far about raid.

Cheaper to back up everything on to a 3TB disk
and file it every month than any other option.

In all these years, I don't know of one situation
where raid saved the day. All that the numerous
installs of raid I have ever seen is make an
already bad situation 1000% worse.
JEDIDIAH (11-09-14, 03:34 AM)
On 2014-11-08, David Brown <david.brown> wrote:
> On 08/11/14 00:00, 7 wrote:


Copying large amounts of data will take a long time.

Linux has nothing to do with that.

> Learn to use raid - either mdraid or btrfs with raid. Upgrading or
> replacing disks then needs only a little effort as you swap drives
> (perhaps powering off if you don't have hot swapping) - all the copying
> is done in the background, while the system is still working.


The same is still true of some more crude JBOD setup. What he is whining
about has squat to do with Linux and is simply a limitation of the technology
and the bulk of data he's dealing with.
7 (11-10-14, 02:36 AM)
JEDIDIAH wrote:

> Copying large amounts of data will take a long time.
> Linux has nothing to do with that.
> The same is still true of some more crude JBOD setup. What he is
> whining
> about has squat to do with Linux and is simply a limitation of the
> technology and the bulk of data he's dealing with.


Yup 100%. I think corporations should start banning large
mechanical drives and ordering up higher speed SSDs as the
default option because we are moving into an era where
a big disk crash is going to take out two days of
someone's time even if Linux backs you all the way.

So a building with 1000 employess gets a power surge,
and you are looking at 40 PCs down may be and while
you might get 20 out the door quickly, The remaining
will take 40 man days to sort out.

I remember them bad days - so we had buffer stock of
30 PCs.

I upgraded a 256GB SSD mail server in 2 hours.
If the future is 2 days for mechanical drives,
I'd rather management invested in more SSDs,
Desk Rabbit (11-11-14, 11:16 AM)
On 07/11/2014 23:00, 7 wrote:
[..]
> So these numbers seem to be real.
> (With windoops, you may as well reserve one or two
> weeks to do same feat ;) )


WRONG!

The limiting factor is the transfer rate of the drive(s) and the spindle
speed (Along with the amount of data) not the OS.
Silver Slimer (11-11-14, 03:49 PM)
On 11/11/2014 4:16 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> On 07/11/2014 23:00, 7 wrote:
> WRONG!
> The limiting factor is the transfer rate of the drive(s) and the spindle
> speed (Along with the amount of data) not the OS.


Wow, I didn't bother to read his propaganda but was he really suggesting
that hard disks run faster within GNU/Linux?
flatfish+++ (11-11-14, 03:51 PM)
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:49:31 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote:

> On 11/11/2014 4:16 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> Wow, I didn't bother to read his propaganda but was he really suggesting
> that hard disks run faster within GNU/Linux?


Doesn't everything run faster with Linux?
lol!
Silver Slimer (11-11-14, 04:09 PM)
On 11/11/2014 8:51 AM, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:49:31 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote:
> Doesn't everything run faster with Linux?
> lol!


To be honest, my SSDs run a lot faster within Windows 8 than they did in
Ubuntu or Ubuntu GNOME. It shouldn't be the case as SSDs don't require
any kind of special software to do their thing but reading and writing
was significantly slower in the open-source operating system than in
Windows. It's truly sad. Add to that the fact that the GPU ran terribly
and that the sound card had random pops and cracks and you really have
to call a spade a spade and say that GNU/Linux is shit.

Still, I'd love to see how 7 _PROVES_ that whatever he says is a fact. I
have yet to see any kind of evidence in any of his posts. It's just
random garbage.
Ezekiel (11-11-14, 04:29 PM)
"Silver Slimer" <slvrslmr> wrote in message
news:7bi1
> On 11/11/2014 4:16 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> Wow, I didn't bother to read his propaganda but was he really suggesting
> that hard disks run faster within GNU/Linux?


Of course. The "advocate" claims that it takes a 1/2 day to copy 4TB with
Linux but it would take "weeks" to do on Windows.

They sure grow them dumb. No wonder "7" makes less than a McDonalds manager.
flatfish+++ (11-11-14, 04:46 PM)
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:09:45 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote:

[..]
> Still, I'd love to see how 7 _PROVES_ that whatever he says is a fact. I
> have yet to see any kind of evidence in any of his posts. It's just
> random garbage.


Random garbage is also a good description of GNU/Linux/FOSS in
general.
flatfish+++ (11-11-14, 04:48 PM)
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:29:41 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Silver Slimer" <slvrslmr> wrote in message
> news:7bi1
> Of course. The "advocate" claims that it takes a 1/2 day to copy 4TB with
> Linux but it would take "weeks" to do on Windows.
> They sure grow them dumb. No wonder "7" makes less than a McDonalds manager.


And notice that not a single Linux "advocate" confronts the idiocy
that moron 7 spews.
They let his babbling stand unchallenged because they deem it
positive to Linux advocacy. The fact that most of it is completely
fabricated lies doesn't seem to matter.

Advocate Linux, even if you have to lie about it.
That's how these bottom feeders operate.
Silver Slimer (11-11-14, 05:27 PM)
On 11/11/2014 9:29 AM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Silver Slimer" <slvrslmr> wrote in message
> news:7bi1
> Of course. The "advocate" claims that it takes a 1/2 day to copy 4TB with
> Linux but it would take "weeks" to do on Windows.
> They sure grow them dumb. No wonder "7" makes less than a McDonalds manager.


Joseph Michael is banned from McDonald's because rather than come in and
buy "food," he only comes in every so often to spread propaganda about
something called Linux that nobody has ever heard of.

Similar Threads