2016-09-01 9:13 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
> On 01/09/2016 08:04, gevisz wrote:
>> I have bought an external 5TB Western Digital hard drive
>> that I am going to use mainly for backing up some files
>> in my home directory and carrying a very big files, for
>> example a virtual machine image file, f
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 08:13:23AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> it will take about 5 seconds to partition it.
> And a few more to mkfs it.
>
> Are you sure you aren't thinking of mkfs with ext2 (which did take hours
> for a drive that size?
Some people do a full systems check (i.e. badblocks) be
gevisz wrote:
>
> But what are disadvantages of not partitioning a big
> hard drive into smaller logical ones?
If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to
repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead of just
one partition). That's the only disadvantage I can think
of. I don't lik
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:18:29 +0300, gevisz wrote:
> > it will take about 5 seconds to partition it.
> > And a few more to mkfs it.
>
> Just to partition - may be, but I very much doubt
> that it will take seconds to create a full-fledged
> ext4 file system on these 5TB via USB2 connention.
Even
2016-09-01 10:23 GMT+03:00 Frank Steinmetzger :
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 08:13:23AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> it will take about 5 seconds to partition it.
>> And a few more to mkfs it.
>>
>> Are you sure you aren't thinking of mkfs with ext2 (which did take hours
>> for a drive that size?
2016-09-01 10:30 GMT+03:00 Matthias Hanft :
> gevisz wrote:
>>
>> But what are disadvantages of not partitioning a big
>> hard drive into smaller logical ones?
>
> If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to
> repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead of just
> one partition). T
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:49:43 +0300, gevisz wrote:
> > If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to
> > repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead of just
> > one partition). That's the only disadvantage I can think
> > of.
>
> That is exactly what I am afraid of!
>
> So, the 2
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:44:19AM +0300, gevisz wrote:
> > Some people do a full systems check (i.e. badblocks) before entrusting a
> > drive with anything important.
>
> It is a good advice! I have already thought of this but I am sorry to
> acknowledge that, since the "old good times" of MS DO
2016-09-01 11:03 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:18:29 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
>> > it will take about 5 seconds to partition it.
>> > And a few more to mkfs it.
>>
>> Just to partition - may be, but I very much doubt
>> that it will take seconds to create a full-fledged
>> ext4 fi
On 01/09/2016 09:18, gevisz wrote:
> 2016-09-01 9:13 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
>> On 01/09/2016 08:04, gevisz wrote:
[snip]
>> it will take about 5 seconds to partition it.
>> And a few more to mkfs it.
>
> Just to partition - may be, but I very much doubt
> that it will take seconds to create a
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:59:55 +0300, gevisz wrote:
> > You said you wanted to use this drive for backups,
> > surely doing it right is more important than doing
> > it quickly. It's not like you have to hold its hand
> > while mkfs is running.
>
> But I would have to keep my fingers crossed so th
2016-09-01 11:55 GMT+03:00 Frank Steinmetzger :
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:44:19AM +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
>> > Some people do a full systems check (i.e. badblocks) before entrusting a
>> > drive with anything important.
>>
>> It is a good advice! I have already thought of this but I am sorry to
>
2016-09-01 11:54 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:49:43 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
>> > If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to
>> > repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead of just
>> > one partition). That's the only disadvantage I can think
>> > of.
>>
>> Th
2016-09-01 12:04 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:59:55 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
>> > You said you wanted to use this drive for backups,
>> > surely doing it right is more important than doing
>> > it quickly. It's not like you have to hold its hand
>> > while mkfs is running.
>>
>>
On 01/09/2016 10:59, gevisz wrote:
> 2016-09-01 11:03 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:18:29 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>>
it will take about 5 seconds to partition it.
And a few more to mkfs it.
>>>
>>> Just to partition - may be, but I very much doubt
>>> that it will take s
On 01/09/2016 10:44, gevisz wrote:
> 2016-09-01 10:23 GMT+03:00 Frank Steinmetzger :
>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 08:13:23AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> it will take about 5 seconds to partition it.
>>> And a few more to mkfs it.
>>>
>>> Are you sure you aren't thinking of mkfs with ext2 (whic
2016-09-01 12:01 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
> On 01/09/2016 09:18, gevisz wrote:
>> 2016-09-01 9:13 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
>>> On 01/09/2016 08:04, gevisz wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive
into smaller logical ones and why?
>>>
>>> The only reason t
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:04 AM, gevisz wrote:
>
> Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive
> into smaller logical ones and why?
>
Assuming this is only used on Linux machines (you mentioned moving
files around), here is what I would do:
1. Definitely create a partition table. Yes, I
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:09:09 +0300, gevisz wrote:
> > Have you considered LVM? You get the benefits of separate filesystems
> > without the limitations of inflexible partitioning.
>
> I am afraid of LVM because of the same reason as described below:
>
> returning to the "old good times" of MS D
gevisz wrote:
> 2016-09-01 9:13 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
>> On 01/09/2016 08:04, gevisz wrote:
>>> I have bought an external 5TB Western Digital hard drive
>>> that I am going to use mainly for backing up some files
>>> in my home directory and carrying a very big files, for
>>> example a virtual
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote:
> >> Which NTFS system are you using?
> >>
> >> ntfs kernel module? It's quite dodgy and unsafe with writes
> >> ntfs-ng on fuse? I find that one quite solid
> >
> > I'm using ntfs-ng as opposed to
On Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:09:09 PM gevisz wrote:
> 2016-09-01 11:54 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:49:43 +0300, gevisz wrote:
> >> > If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to
> >> > repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead of just
> >> > one par
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 22:51:47 Mick wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 Aug 2016 15:30:51 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 Aug 2016 13:38:13 J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:56:50 AM Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 30 Aug 2016 12:06:43 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > > > Y
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> Honestly, I tend not to create separate partitions for separate mount points
> these days. At least, not on personal systems. For servers, it's can be
> beneficial to have /var separate from /, or /var/log separate from /var, or
> /var/spool,
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> The defaults for vm.dirty_bytes and vm.dirty_background_bytes are, IMO, badly
> broken and an insidious source of problems for both regular Linux users and
> system administrators.
>
It depends on whether you tend to yank out drives without u
On Thursday, September 01, 2016 08:41:39 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote:
> > >> Which NTFS system are you using?
> > >>
> > >> ntfs kernel module? It's quite dodgy and unsafe with writes
> > >> ntfs-ng on
> On 31 Aug 2016, at 16:25, Grant wrote:
>
>> Yes, FAT. It works and works well.
>> Or exFAT which is Microsoft's solution to the problem of very large
>> files on FAT.
>
> FAT32 won't work for me since I need to use files larger than 4GB. I
> know it's beta software but should exfat be more r
On Thursday, September 01, 2016 09:35:15 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> > The defaults for vm.dirty_bytes and vm.dirty_background_bytes are, IMO,
> > badly broken and an insidious source of problems for both regular Linux
> > users and system administ
On Thursday, September 01, 2016 04:21:18 PM J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 01, 2016 08:41:39 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:45:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > On 31/08/2016 17:25, Grant wrote:
> > > >> Which NTFS system are you using?
> > > >>
> > > >> n
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> The sad truth is that many (most?) users don't understand the idea of
> unmounting. Even Microsoft largely gave up, having flash drives "optimized for
> data safety" as opposed to "optimized for speed". While it'd be nice if the
> average Joh
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:27:39 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Honestly, I tend not to create separate partitions for separate mount
> > points these days. At least, not on personal systems. For servers,
> > it's can be beneficial to have /var separate from /, or /var/log
> > separate from /var, or /v
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:27:39 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> > Honestly, I tend not to create separate partitions for separate mount
>> > points these days. At least, not on personal systems. For servers,
>> > it's can be beneficial to have /va
Am 31.08.2016 um 16:33 schrieb Michael Mol:
>
> In data=journal mode, the contents of files pass through the journal as well,
> ensuring that, at least as far as the filesystem's responsibility is
> concerned,
> the data will be intact in the event of a crash.
a common misconception. But not tr
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
>
> a common misconception. But not true at all. Google a bit.
Feel free to enlighten us. My understanding is that data=journal
means that all data gets written first to the journal. Completed
writes will make it to the main filesystem
2016-09-01 14:55 GMT+03:00 Rich Freeman :
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:04 AM, gevisz wrote:
>>
>> Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive
>> into smaller logical ones and why?
>>
>
> Assuming this is only used on Linux machines (you mentioned moving
> files around), here is what I would
2016-09-01 15:21 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:09:09 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
>> > Have you considered LVM? You get the benefits of separate filesystems
>> > without the limitations of inflexible partitioning.
>>
>> I am afraid of LVM because of the same reason as described below:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, gevisz wrote:
> 2016-09-01 14:55 GMT+03:00 Rich Freeman :
>
>> 2. Set it up as an LVM partition. Unless you're using filesystems
>> like zfs/btrfs that have their own way of doing volume management,
>> this just makes things less painful down the road.
>>
>> 3. I'd
2016-09-01 15:51 GMT+03:00 Michael Mol :
>
> On Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:09:09 PM gevisz wrote:
>> 2016-09-01 11:54 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
>> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:49:43 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>> >> > If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to
>> >> > repair it), *all* of y
2016-09-01 22:12 GMT+03:00 Rich Freeman :
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, gevisz wrote:
>> 2016-09-01 14:55 GMT+03:00 Rich Freeman :
>>
>>> 2. Set it up as an LVM partition. Unless you're using filesystems
>>> like zfs/btrfs that have their own way of doing volume management,
>>> this just make
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:47:22 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick :
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:34:55 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
>
> > Surprise surprise, 4.7 has this (still not fully fixed) oom-killer
> > bug. When I'm running virtual machines, it still kicks in. I wanted
> > to stay on 4.6.x until 4.8 is rel
Am Sun, 21 Aug 2016 05:55:06 -0400
schrieb Rich Freeman :
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Peter Humphrey
> wrote:
> >
> > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
> > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
> > server chain? I get the same with UK
Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:56:06 +0300
schrieb gevisz :
> > Backups are annoying.
>
> Yes. :)
No, try borgbackup with a cronjob.
> > I don't do them as well as ideally I should
>
> Who does? :)
I do.
> Well, probably, one who just lost a lot of data because of not doing
> backup. :)
Data th
Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:04:53 +0300
schrieb gevisz :
> I have bought an external 5TB Western Digital hard drive
> that I am going to use mainly for backing up some files
> in my home directory and carrying a very big files, for
> example a virtual machine image file, from one computer
> to another.
On 01/09/2016 22:08, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:47:22 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick :
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:34:55 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
Surprise surprise, 4.7 has this (still not fully fixed) oom-killer
bug. When I'm running virtual machines, it still kicks in. I wanted
to sta
Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:03:17 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick :
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:18:29 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
> > > it will take about 5 seconds to partition it.
> > > And a few more to mkfs it.
> >
> > Just to partition - may be, but I very much doubt
> > that it will take seconds to creat
Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:09:09 +0300
schrieb gevisz :
> 2016-09-01 11:54 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:49:43 +0300, gevisz wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >>
> >> That is exactly what I am afraid of!
> >>
> >> So, the 20-years old rule of thumb is still valid. :(
> >>
> [...]
> >
Am Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:51:19 -0700
schrieb Grant :
> > # mount -o loop,ro -t ntfs usb.img /mnt/usbstick
> > NTFS signature is missing.
> > Failed to mount '/dev/loop0': Invalid argument
> > The device '/dev/loop0' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS.
> > Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:04:22 +0300, gevisz wrote:
> > LVM is neither encrypted nor compressed. The filesystems on it are no
> > different to the filesystems on physical partitions, and subject to
> > the same risks. An LVM logical volume is just a block device that is
> > treated the same as a phys
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:38:26 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick :
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:46:54 +0100, Mick wrote:
>
> > > So I'm done with NTFS forever. Will ext2 somehow allow me to use
> > > the USB stick across Gentoo systems without permission/ownership
> > > problems?
> > >
> > > - Grant
>
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:08:19 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
> > No one forced you to do anything. You 4.6 kernel was still in boot,
> > your 4.6 sources were still installed. The ebuild was only removed
> > fro the portage tree, nothing was uninstalled from your system unless
> > you did it. Even the ebu
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 23:06:56 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
> If you want to use it as a backup, and it's external (which it should
> be), by all means: partition it. It acts as a protection layer against
> silly OSes that may simply wipe data at the beginning (maybe by
> accident) because there is no pa
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:27:46 +0200
schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann :
> Am 30.08.2016 um 21:14 schrieb J. Roeleveld:
> > On August 30, 2016 8:58:17 PM GMT+02:00, Volker Armin Hemmann
> > wrote:
> >> Am 30.08.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> >> first
> [..
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 23:50:17 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
> > > ext2 will work, but you'll have to mount it or chmod -R 0777, or
> > > only root will be able to access it.
> >
> > That's not true. Whoever owns the files and directories will be able
> > to access then, even if root mounted the stic
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:59:02 -0400
schrieb Rich Freeman :
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> wrote:
> >
> > the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just
> > makes it more likely that the fs is in a sane state if there is a
> > crash. Likely. Not a gu
Am Wed, 31 Aug 2016 02:32:24 +0200
schrieb Alan McKinnon :
> On 31/08/2016 02:08, Grant wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> >>
> >> You can't control ownership and permissions of existing files with
> >> mount options on a Linux filesystem. See man mount.
> >
> >
> > So in order to use a USB stick
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
> Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:59:02 -0400
> schrieb Rich Freeman :
>
>>
>> That depends on the mode of operation. In journal=data I believe
>> everything gets written twice, which should make it fairly immune to
>> most forms of corruption.
>
> No, jou
Am Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:05:51 -0700
schrieb Daniel Frey :
> On 08/29/2016 11:11 AM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 06:29:50PM +0200, meino.cra...@gmx.de
> > wrote
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> after updateing my system, beside others guvcview was updated:
> >>
> >> from qlop
> >> M
On 02/09/2016 00:56, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Wed, 31 Aug 2016 02:32:24 +0200
schrieb Alan McKinnon :
On 31/08/2016 02:08, Grant wrote:
[...]
[...]
You can't control ownership and permissions of existing files with
mount options on a Linux filesystem. See man mount.
So in order to use a USB
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 03:55:32 +0200
schrieb meino.cra...@gmx.de:
> Daniel Frey [16-08-30 03:48]:
> > On 08/29/2016 11:11 AM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 06:29:50PM +0200, meino.cra...@gmx.de
> > > wrote
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> > >
> > > The first su
On 01/09/2016 10:49, gevisz wrote:
2016-09-01 10:30 GMT+03:00 Matthias Hanft :
gevisz wrote:
But what are disadvantages of not partitioning a big
hard drive into smaller logical ones?
If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to
repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead of
Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 23:02:17 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick :
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 23:50:17 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
>
> [...]
> > >
> > > That's not true. Whoever owns the files and directories will be
> > > able to access then, even if root mounted the stick, just like a
> > > hard drive. If yo
Am Fri, 2 Sep 2016 01:53:31 +0200
schrieb Alan McKinnon :
> On 01/09/2016 10:49, gevisz wrote:
> > 2016-09-01 10:30 GMT+03:00 Matthias Hanft :
> >> gevisz wrote:
> [...]
> >>
> >> If your filesystem becomes corrupt (and you are unable to
> >> repair it), *all* of your data is lost (instead
Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:56:31 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick :
> > - so my next upgrade would "force" me into deciding going way down
> > (probably a bad idea) or up into unknown territory (and this showed:
> > can also be a problem). Or I can stay with 4.6 until depclean
> > removed it for good (which
Am Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:47:07 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick :
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:38:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > This is almost certainly a bug in btrfs-progs, or maybe the btrfs
> > filesystem driver in the kernel.
>
> The latter, a later kernel appears to have done the trick.
>
>
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:56:31 +0100
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:08:19 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
> > Removal of a 4.6 series ebuild also means there would follow no
> > updates
>
> Are there any updates to the 4.6 series or was is 4.7 considered its
> successor by the kernels de
2016-09-01 11:55 GMT+03:00 Frank Steinmetzger :
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:44:19AM +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
>> > Some people do a full systems check (i.e. badblocks) before entrusting a
>> > drive with anything important.
>>
>> It is a good advice! I have already thought of this but I am sorry to
>
2016-09-02 7:23 GMT+03:00 gevisz :
> 2016-09-01 11:55 GMT+03:00 Frank Steinmetzger :
>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:44:19AM +0300, gevisz wrote:
>>
>>> > Some people do a full systems check (i.e. badblocks) before entrusting a
>>> > drive with anything important.
>>>
>>> It is a good advice! I have
67 matches
Mail list logo
