Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: > Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data and > drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it > lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on something > that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the problem, > using LVM or not. He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of recovering data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be if it were in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a problem here...] Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a cautionary tale. -- Regards, Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: > >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data and >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on something >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the problem, >> using LVM or not. > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of > recovering > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be if it were > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a problem > here...] > > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a cautionary tale. > >From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and hope the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or the data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've had a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, I removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, installed both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most likely. Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. Just my thinking. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On 2019.01.07 05:46, Dale wrote: Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: > >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data and >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on something >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the problem, >> using LVM or not. > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of recovering > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be if it were > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a problem > here...] > > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a cautionary tale. > From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and hope the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or the data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've had a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, I removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, installed both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most likely. Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. Just my thinking. Dale The only problem with all that is that SMART is far from completely reliable. I recently had a drive fail, and the resulting fsck on the next reboot messed up many files. (Not a Gentoo system, although I don't think that made any difference.) After getting running again, I did several SMART tests, including the full self-test, and it reported ZERO errors. A few weeks later, it did the same thing, and shortly after that, it failed totally. I had done a few more full self-tests before final failure, and all came back clean. I'd really love to find out there was something I did wrong in the testing, but I don't think so. I have not yet completely given up on trying to recover stuff from that drive, but as time goes on, there is less and less that I haven't rebuilt or replaced by re-downloading or changing lost passwords, so it's less and less important. (That was a different drive from the one I messed up myself, as discussed in another recent thread here.) Jack
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On Monday, 7 January 2019 16:30:41 GMT Jack wrote: > On 2019.01.07 05:46, Dale wrote: > > Peter Humphrey wrote: > > > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: > > >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data > > > > and > > > > >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where > > > > it > > > > >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on > > > > something > > > > >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the > > > > problem, > > > > >> using LVM or not. > > > > > > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of > > > > recovering > > > > > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be > > > > if it were > > > > > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a > > > > problem > > > > > here...] > > > > > > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a > > > > cautionary tale. > > > > > > From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART > > message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the > > whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can > > be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to > > the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller > > drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. > > It > > did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to > > do > > it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how > > true > > that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really > > efficiently. > > If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is > > important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and > > hope > > the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a > > failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or > > the > > data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the > > SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've > > had > > a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, > > I > > removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, > > installed > > both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played > > with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most > > likely. > > Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. > > > > While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options > > as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. > > > > Just my thinking. > > > > Dale > > The only problem with all that is that SMART is far from completely > reliable. I recently had a drive fail, and the resulting fsck on the > next reboot messed up many files. (Not a Gentoo system, although I > don't think that made any difference.) After getting running again, I > did several SMART tests, including the full self-test, and it reported > ZERO errors. A few weeks later, it did the same thing, and shortly > after that, it failed totally. I had done a few more full self-tests > before final failure, and all came back clean. I'd really love to find > out there was something I did wrong in the testing, but I don't think > so. I have not yet completely given up on trying to recover stuff from > that drive, but as time goes on, there is less and less that I haven't > rebuilt or replaced by re-downloading or changing lost passwords, so > it's less and less important. (That was a different drive from the one > I messed up myself, as discussed in another recent thread here.) > > Jack Depending on the type of errors reported by SMART, by the time you notice errors in tests the risk of losing data is already quite high. Checking deteriorating trends with smartctl won't hurt though. The filesystem problems you were getting may have been coincidental with the impending hardware failure, rather than their cause. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Jack wrote: > On 2019.01.07 05:46, Dale wrote: >> Peter Humphrey wrote: >> > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: >> > >> >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data >> and >> >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it >> >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on >> something >> >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the >> problem, >> >> using LVM or not. >> > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of >> recovering >> > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be >> if it were >> > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a >> problem >> > here...] >> > >> > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a >> cautionary tale. >> > >> >> From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART >> message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the >> whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can >> be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to >> the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller >> drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It >> did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do >> it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true >> that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. >> If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is >> important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and hope >> the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a >> failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or the >> data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the >> SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've had >> a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, I >> removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, installed >> both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played >> with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most likely. >> Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. >> >> While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options >> as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. >> >> Just my thinking. >> >> Dale > The only problem with all that is that SMART is far from completely > reliable. I recently had a drive fail, and the resulting fsck on the > next reboot messed up many files. (Not a Gentoo system, although I > don't think that made any difference.) After getting running again, I > did several SMART tests, including the full self-test, and it reported > ZERO errors. A few weeks later, it did the same thing, and shortly > after that, it failed totally. I had done a few more full self-tests > before final failure, and all came back clean. I'd really love to > find out there was something I did wrong in the testing, but I don't > think so. I have not yet completely given up on trying to recover > stuff from that drive, but as time goes on, there is less and less > that I haven't rebuilt or replaced by re-downloading or changing lost > passwords, so it's less and less important. (That was a different > drive from the one I messed up myself, as discussed in another recent > thread here.) > > Jack > But do you have any other way to get a warning? It may not work every time, especially if the spindle motor just up and dies all of a sudden but it does detect some errors. It is certainly better than having nothing at all. So far, SMART has detected errors and warned me for the two drives I've had fail. My neighbor had a drive to fail and it gave warnings as well, during boot up but SMART still spit our errors. Thing is, the owner ignored it until it wouldn't boot anymore. By that time, it was toast. They ran windoze. When SMART does warn, it pays to listen. ;-) Mine emails me when any error is reported. Thing is, a bad drive will always risk the loss of data. Always has. Monitoring SMART is better than nothing and generally gives some warning. It's not perfect but there is nothing else that does any better that I've heard or read about. It's the reason everyone should back up data they can't afford to lose. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On 2019.01.07 14:35, Dale wrote: Jack wrote: > On 2019.01.07 05:46, Dale wrote: >> Peter Humphrey wrote: >> > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: >> > >> >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data >> and >> >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it >> >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on >> something >> >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the >> problem, >> >> using LVM or not. >> > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of >> recovering >> > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be >> if it were >> > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a >> problem >> > here...] >> > >> > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a >> cautionary tale. >> > >> >> From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART >> message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the >> whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can >> be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to >> the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller >> drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It >> did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do >> it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true >> that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. >> If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is >> important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and hope >> the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a >> failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or the >> data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the >> SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've had >> a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, I >> removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, installed >> both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played >> with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most likely. >> Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. >> >> While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options >> as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. >> >> Just my thinking. >> >> Dale > The only problem with all that is that SMART is far from completely > reliable. I recently had a drive fail, and the resulting fsck on the > next reboot messed up many files. (Not a Gentoo system, although I > don't think that made any difference.) After getting running again, I > did several SMART tests, including the full self-test, and it reported > ZERO errors. A few weeks later, it did the same thing, and shortly > after that, it failed totally. I had done a few more full self-tests > before final failure, and all came back clean. I'd really love to > find out there was something I did wrong in the testing, but I don't > think so. I have not yet completely given up on trying to recover > stuff from that drive, but as time goes on, there is less and less > that I haven't rebuilt or replaced by re-downloading or changing lost > passwords, so it's less and less important. (That was a different > drive from the one I messed up myself, as discussed in another recent > thread here.) > > Jack > But do you have any other way to get a warning? It may not work every time, especially if the spindle motor just up and dies all of a sudden but it does detect some errors. It is certainly better than having nothing at all. So far, SMART has detected errors and warned me for the two drives I've had fail. My neighbor had a drive to fail and it gave warnings as well, during boot up but SMART still spit our errors. Thing is, the owner ignored it until it wouldn't boot anymore. By that time, it was toast. They ran windoze. When SMART does warn, it pays to listen. ;-) Mine emails me when any error is reported. Thing is, a bad drive will always risk the loss of data. Always has. Monitoring SMART is better than nothing and generally gives some warning. It's not perfect but there is nothing else that does any better that I've heard or read about. It's the reason everyone should back up data they can't afford to lose. Dale :-) :-) I do agree it is better than nothing, and I agree if SMART warns you, you better listen. I just wouldn't bet the farm (or even a small garden) on it. I'm coming closer and closer to just mirroring everything I can't easily recreate. It doubles my disk costs, but should save me some future grief.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Jack wrote: > On 2019.01.07 14:35, Dale wrote: >> >> >> But do you have any other way to get a warning? It may not work every >> time, especially if the spindle motor just up and dies all of a sudden >> but it does detect some errors. It is certainly better than having >> nothing at all. So far, SMART has detected errors and warned me for the >> two drives I've had fail. My neighbor had a drive to fail and it gave >> warnings as well, during boot up but SMART still spit our errors. Thing >> is, the owner ignored it until it wouldn't boot anymore. By that time, >> it was toast. They ran windoze. When SMART does warn, it pays to >> listen. ;-) Mine emails me when any error is reported. >> >> Thing is, a bad drive will always risk the loss of data. Always has. >> Monitoring SMART is better than nothing and generally gives some >> warning. It's not perfect but there is nothing else that does any >> better that I've heard or read about. It's the reason everyone should >> back up data they can't afford to lose. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > I do agree it is better than nothing, and I agree if SMART warns you, > you better listen. I just wouldn't bet the farm (or even a small > garden) on it. I'm coming closer and closer to just mirroring > everything I can't easily recreate. It doubles my disk costs, but > should save me some future grief. > Currently, I have a 3TB and a 6TB drive using LVM. It is mounted as a roughly 8TB partition. I have a external 8TB drive that I backup to, over eSATA at the moment but it has a USB connection as well. I also have SMART set to email me at the first signs of trouble. Hopefully I will get a SMART warning. If not, I hope my backups are up to date. I try to backup at least once a day. The biggest thing I don't want to lose is my emails and some videos. Thing is, I have a plan B. If a drive gives me a warning, I've got a plan C as well. I agree that we shouldn't bet the farm on anything. There is always something unexpected that can happen. Still, backups, surge protection, UPS power, cloud storage for those who can. Those are all options. Just pick what works. Hope for the best but be ready for the worst. Dale :-) :-)
