Time to abandon large mechanical hard drives? - Page 2

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:14:21 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote:



I still maintain that chrisv is a reverse troll whose purpose is to
make Linux users/advocates look bad.
Why?
Because he is so good at it.

On 11/11/2014 11:59 AM,  flatfish+++ wrote:


I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment and am happy to know that  
chrisv is the most effective Wintroll in this newsgroup.

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.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:29:41 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:



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.

Speaking for myself it's because of "Don't feed the troll.". He's not
even a particularly entertaining troll.

(Although I'd hesitate to describe myself as a 'Linux advocate'. I use
it on my primary system, but if Windows or OS X or ... makes you happy
I'm not going to try to change your mind.)

Kristof

On 11/11/2014 9:29 AM, Ezekiel wrote:


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.

Desk Rabbit wrote:




What a LYING fsckwit!!

Why don't you try it first before resorting to lying like a fsckwit
and mouthing off from an armchair?

On 2014-11-22 7:38 PM, 7 wrote:


He's correct, actually. You're the one who's lying in calling him a liar.

On 11/22/14, 8:12 PM, in article m4rjb8$i5h$1@dont-email.me, "Sir Slimer"



Typical COLA: real topic dead so the topic becomes screaming accusations.

On 22/11/2014 10:29 PM, Snit wrote:


I think it's the GNUslims' new strategy: boring us to tears with  
repetition so that we go away and allow them to live in their fictional  
existence where GNU/Linux matters.

On 11/22/14, 8:45 PM, in article m4rl8r$1mo$1@dont-email.me, "Sir Slimer"



Correct... except for the idea this is a "new strategy." They have done this
for years.

On 22/11/2014 10:49 PM, Snit wrote:


I guess they're doing to us what they do to the whole female gender.

Sir Slimer wrote:



  

Microshaft & Appile funded trolls are tooo stuupid to know
anything about technology these days ;)

Please, lets all give up using microshaft and appile products
because those crocporations are too stupid and lets all
stick to Linux from now on :)

Hello, 7.
On 7/8/16 2:59 PM you wrote:

 > Time to abandon large mechanical hard drives?  
 > --------------------------------------------- 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.

High price is onne thing, but don't SSDs also have a significantly  
shorter lifespan (I mean the number of re-write cycles before  
degradation starts) compared to HDDs? Or am I stuck in the past and this  
problem has already been resolved?

Many (most?) Solid State Drives DO NOT RETAIN DATA FOREVER!
NOT for offline backups!

On 10/07/16 10:47, Jeff Jonas wrote:


If you write /vast/ amounts of data (we are talking PB for a modern SSD
- re-writing the entire disk a few thousand times) then store it at high
temperature, then you might get problems with retention after as little
as a year.

But if you write more sane amounts of data, and store the archived SSD
at sensible temperatures (like room temperature), it will retain all its
data for a good many years.

For comparison, a worn mechanical disk always has the risk of simply
failing mechanically if it has been left unused and unpowered for years.

In either case, multiple copies of your archive data are advisable.  But
SSD's are not worse than HD's for the purpose - they are just different.

On 08/07/16 15:29, Alexander Suvorov wrote:


That only applies to old, small or very low-end SSD's.  If you have a
mid-range consumer SSD with 200GB+ of size, there is no realistic
workload that could ever come close to wearing it out.

On 11/07/16 08:33, David Brown wrote:



Well I have a box controlling the heating in our Church. Its SSD is  
actually a USB stick (about 10 years old now), but the stuff on it  
changes rarely (e.g. when I upgrade the software) and I carefully chose  
a web server (Appweb) that deliberately keeps its state information in  
RAM. So I hope the box will continue to run for many years (though  
things might break for other reasons in Jan. 2038).

BUT there are a few kilobytes of data that are changing all the time  
(e.g. a record of temperature changes over the last month, and the  
schedule of upcoming heating requirements). I did not want to trust  
Flash memory for that, so I installed a 128 kB EEPROM (which claimed it  
could be overwritten a million times before wearing out).

Was this a good move? Recently, I observed a lot of random read failures  
(which usually corrected themselves when you re-read the same address).  
Now it may be due to the hot weather (the room housing the box has  
regularly been at 30 degrees Celcius over this last month - maybe it  
will be OK when the weather gets cooler).

Should I be worried? Data is written to it a byte at a time, whenever  
the temperature in one of the 4 zones changes by 0.1 degree. It is not  
clear whether, behind the scenes, it overwrites a full 12b-byte block  
when you try to overwrite a single byte.

What alternative options do I have?