 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The most insidious I've found is some games have a 60 minute trial period.
> You'll be happily playing the game and Bang! you're kicked out at 1 hour
> with a message saying "You can continue playing if you pay up, NOW."
A lot of mobile phones I've seen recently have game demos that run for
*seconds*, not minutes!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> A lot of mobile phones I've seen recently have game demos that run for
> *seconds*, not minutes!
>
How can you form an impression of a game in seconds of gameplay?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> A lot of mobile phones I've seen recently have game demos that run for
>> *seconds*, not minutes!
>
> How can you form an impression of a game in seconds of gameplay?
It's a game for a mobile phone. How good can it possibly be?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's a game for a mobile phone. How good can it possibly be?
I dunno, I've spent hours playing the 3D golf game that came on my phone.
And even back in the days of black and white low resolution screens, I
played the snake game and that bantumi???? game for ages. You don't always
need a multi-GHz CPU and 100W GPU to run a good game.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> It's a game for a mobile phone. How good can it possibly be?
>
> I dunno, I've spent hours playing the 3D golf game that came on my
> phone. And even back in the days of black and white low resolution
> screens, I played the snake game and that bantumi???? game for ages.
> You don't always need a multi-GHz CPU and 100W GPU to run a good game.
What do you mean "back in the days"?
Well anyway, my new phone's Soduku kept me busy for all of about 3
minutes, and then I got fed up of the awkward controls and tiny display.
Games don't have to be complex to be fun. (Tetris, anyone?) They *do*
however need to be sufficiently devoid of irritating features like being
hard to control or hard to see.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:40:09 +0100, Eero Ahonen
<aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid> did spake, saying:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Even so, you would think there would have to be some kind of *cause*
>> for this. The broken drive has been tried on another machine and found
>> to not work there either. However, the person made a comment about a
>> second USB drive having recently failed in exactly the same way. This
>> makes me rather suspicious...
>>
>
> She might be removing[1] them without removing[2] them.
>
> [1] Physically
> [2] By the eject -command
But I thought the default option on XP was to allow that. Even if she had
physically removed it the next time it was plugged in it would complain
and ask if you wanted to run chkdsk.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> What do you mean "back in the days"?
An old Nokia color screen phone I had had some sort of platform-style
game that was pretty addicting, controls made sense, too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
>
> But I thought the default option on XP was to allow that. Even if she
> had physically removed it the next time it was plugged in it would
> complain and ask if you wanted to run chkdsk.
>
Allowing it is theoretically possible, yes. If the filesystem is running
synced, you can remove the USB-drive from the computer when there is no
visual indication of usage of the USB-drive (this might be the default
on XP, yes). If the filesystem is not running synced, the devices really
needs to be ejected, since rest of the data will be written at the
eject. Anyway, if you remove the drive from the computer when the
computer is writing on it, you will have at least something corrupted -
no matter if the drive is synced (and you have visual indication on
screen) or not.
In easy language: if there's copying going on oslt, *DO NOT* remove the
drive.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Games don't have to be complex to be fun. (Tetris, anyone?) They *do*
> however need to be sufficiently devoid of irritating features like being
> hard to control or hard to see.
Agreed. Wonder why some phones come with games like golf (HUH??) instead of
snake or tetris or something like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >> Even so, you would think there would have to be some kind of *cause*
> >> for this. The broken drive has been tried on another machine and found
> >> to not work there either. However, the person made a comment about a
> >> second USB drive having recently failed in exactly the same way. This
> >> makes me rather suspicious...
> >>
> >
> > She might be removing[1] them without removing[2] them.
> >
> > [1] Physically
> > [2] By the eject -command
>
> But I thought the default option on XP was to allow that. Even if she had
> physically removed it the next time it was plugged in it would complain
> and ask if you wanted to run chkdsk.
XP definately tells you to wait until itīs finished writing to the "drive". Also
I know programs that donīt do this well or very slowly. One drawing software I
use frequently, takes up to 15 minutes to save a file to a USB drive! And then
more than often the file is unreadable afterwards.
A rule of thumb must be, donīt save your file directly from a program. Save the
file onto the hard drive first, and then use a file manager to copy it to the
USB drive.
I think the problem with data recovery is that things have gotten too
sophisticated, especially with USB.
Back in the days I used a data recovery software which was non OS specific, you
simply burnt in onto a CD (or was it a floppy!) and it would boot up your PC
and show -everything- that was written on any disk, including deleted data and
ghost traces of data which had been moved physically. All you had to do was to
specify the disk you wanted to recover from and a healthy disk you wanted to
recover it to. I used it once to save data from a badly crashed hard drive with
around 75% success. All I had to do was to borrow (or buy) an extra hard drive
and copy to it.
The problem now is, when booting up on such an non OS specific software, to my
knowledge you donīt have access to USB. If it werenīt for USB, these old cheap
programs would still probably do the trick. So, unless you want to pay somebody
a lot of money to recover your data, using USB drives (small sticks or bigger
drives) for backups may not be a great idea.
Iīve had this same problem with camera sticks, that *great all-in-one* USB photo
card reader more than once made the stick unreadable and then the system told me
it was unformatted and I lost every single photo! By merely inserting the stick
everything was gone. There was nothing I could do about it. Very annoying!
Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote in message
news:web.48b95a84d89d321b80197cfe0@news.povray.org...
> The problem now is, when booting up on such an non OS specific software,
> to my
> knowledge you don´t have access to USB. If it weren´t for USB, these old
> cheap
> programs would still probably do the trick. So, unless you want to pay
> somebody
> a lot of money to recover your data, using USB drives (small sticks or
> bigger
> drives) for backups may not be a great idea.
Wow, thanks for the heads-up Hildur. I've just bought a USB 500Gig
external hard drive, and I'm trying to save every important doc/file to it.
After what you've said though, I guess it's best to unplug it as soon as
I can, and just put it in some dark corner somewhere. ;)
>
> I´ve had this same problem with camera sticks, that *great all-in-one* USB
> photo
> card reader more than once made the stick unreadable and then the system
> told me
> it was unformatted and I lost every single photo! By merely inserting the
> stick
> everything was gone. There was nothing I could do about it. Very annoying!
Gah, I feel for you!
(Hope you are well).
~Steve~
>
> Hildur
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:07:12 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
> After what you've said though, I guess it's best to unplug it as soon as
>I can, and just put it in some dark corner somewhere. ;)
You can store it with me Steve ;)
I think we're talking about a ram drive here not a HD.
I've had problems removing ram drive from Windows 2000 where you have to stop
the drive but not with XP or Vista.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:vkhjb45dg19r9p8u7qo66gd6lmif2b9aag@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:07:12 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> After what you've said though, I guess it's best to unplug it as soon
>> as
>>I can, and just put it in some dark corner somewhere. ;)
>
> You can store it with me Steve ;)
LOL! I'm sure it would be safe. Thanks mate, prepare for a 50Gig
download!
Hehe... :)
> I think we're talking about a ram drive here not a HD.
Oh, I was going by what Hildur said about "small sticks or *bigger
drives*"
> I've had problems removing ram drive from Windows 2000 where you have to
> stop
> the drive but not with XP or Vista.
In my early days, I heard so much 'bad' as regard to win 2000 that I
just had to go with win 98. (Like everyone else that wanted a 'computer'
back then).
~Steve~
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
>
> After what you've said though, I guess it's best to unplug it as soon as
> I can, and just put it in some dark corner somewhere. ;)
>
Having offline -backups is *always* a good idea. Imagine having your
only backup-drive connected and mounted and getting a virus that erases
or compromises every drive on the computer.
>
> ~Steve~
>
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:41:32 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> You can store it with me Steve ;)
>
> LOL! I'm sure it would be safe. Thanks mate, prepare for a 50Gig
>download!
>
Hay! I was talking about storing the drive ;)
> Hehe... :)
>
Ho! Ho! :)
>
>> I think we're talking about a ram drive here not a HD.
>
> Oh, I was going by what Hildur said about "small sticks or *bigger
>drives*"
>
I read that differently and thought he was talking about recovery. Hmm!
>> I've had problems removing ram drive from Windows 2000 where you have to
>> stop
>> the drive but not with XP or Vista.
>
> In my early days, I heard so much 'bad' as regard to win 2000 that I
>just had to go with win 98. (Like everyone else that wanted a 'computer'
>back then).
I've only ever used 2000 at work, where it seems one of the standards. There is
an icon on the notification area of the taskbar that you have to click and stop
the drive/USB device before removing any hardware. A real PITA until you get
into the habit :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> After what you've said though, I guess it's best to unplug it as soon as
> I can, and just put it in some dark corner somewhere. ;)
On an external drive, chances are excellent that if something goes wrong
with the USB controller part, you can just take the drive out of the box
and plug it into a different one, or into your computer internally.
I don't know of any USB hard drives that aren't regular hard drives with
USB slapped on the side (altho I expect maybe there might be some).
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> I don't know of any USB hard drives that aren't regular hard drives with
> USB slapped on the side (altho I expect maybe there might be some).
>
Probably there isn't and won't be such device easily available. It's
probably a bit cheaper (=profitable) to install ready hard drives from
the same line which sends them to OEM computer manufacturers than to
start making a new model.
OTOH we'll see how USB-HD's can carry on, since eSATA is also getting to
be possible choice. I upgraded my homeserver and changed the case to a
cheap entry-level one (still much better than it used to be.. actually I
think it's quite good) and it has eSATA-connector in the front panel (I
couldn't plug it in, though, since it would've used 1 SATA-connector
from the mobo - and I needed all 6 of them inside).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> I don't know of any USB hard drives that aren't regular hard drives
>> with USB slapped on the side (altho I expect maybe there might be some).
>>
>
> Probably there isn't and won't be such device easily available.
I didn't want to be definite. I *have* seen hard drives designed to
replace memory sticks in high-end cameras. (Compact Flash-shaped hard
drives, I think?)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Games don't have to be complex to be fun. (Tetris, anyone?) They *do*
>> however need to be sufficiently devoid of irritating features like being
>> hard to control or hard to see.
>
> Agreed. Wonder why some phones come with games like golf (HUH??) instead
> of
> snake or tetris or something like that.
I prefer the slower games where you don't need to be able to press 4 keys in
1 second to stay alive (tetris!). Maybe I need bigger keys on my phone, and
does any phone actually allow you to press more than one key simultaneously?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
> Gah, I feel for you!
>
> (Hope you are well).
>
>
> ~Steve~
Iīm still around here somewhere, thanks Steve :)
I am running two PCīs, one on old Win2000 (amazingly still running great after
more than 4 years) and one on XP. Early on (after my first HD crash which
wasnīt a physical crash, only a partial wipe out)I went into the habit of
dividing my hard drives into partitions. Both my PCīs now have 4 partitions,
each on a single physical drive, which means I use the primary partition (C)
for the OS, drivers and programs, and the other partitions (D,E,F) for all work
and data (NEVER saving to "MyDocuments" or "Desktop"). The hard drives are much
more reliable nowadays so Iīm not so worried about data loss.
In the (very likely) case my OS eventually crashes, I can reinstall or upgrade
without touching the other partitions so there is no loss of data.
This has worked for me for a very long time now, so I generally recommend this
approach. I has certain other advantages, like "defragmentation" is usually a
quick process as you usually only have to run it on the system drive. If I run
out of space on C I simply install software to D, Windoze doesnīt mind which
partition it installs programs to.
The reason I have 4 partitions is... well, the original idea was one for OS, one
for games, one for sound editing, one for 3D work, everybody has their own
preference.
USB drives are very handy when moving data from one location to another, I just
feel they shouldnīt be used for safety backups, unless you have another copy
stashed somewhere as well. I use rewritable DVDīs for backups, tend to forget
to update them though...
Having two physical HDīs installed is also an option, the likelihood of both
crashing simultaneously is slim, doesnīt work for laptops though. But itīs
relatively cheap and making backups is fast and easy... good for lazy and
unorganized people like me.
Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hildur K. wrote:
> Early on (after my first HD crash which
> wasnīt a physical crash, only a partial wipe out)I went into the habit of
> dividing my hard drives into partitions. Both my PCīs now have 4 partitions,
> each on a single physical drive, which means I use the primary partition (C)
> for the OS, drivers and programs, and the other partitions (D,E,F) for all work
> and data (NEVER saving to "MyDocuments" or "Desktop"). The hard drives are much
> more reliable nowadays so Iīm not so worried about data loss.
>
> In the (very likely) case my OS eventually crashes, I can reinstall or upgrade
> without touching the other partitions so there is no loss of data.
I do this.
I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
unavoidable having seperate logical volumes. But I did it back when I
only had one drive too. Makes reinstalling the OS that much easier
without losing work. (If anything on my PC could be considered "work".)
I also have a big folder containing the installers for every program
I've ever downloaded, so I can reinstall them all quickly without having
to redownload them. (OTOH, I typically end up downloading a newer
version anyway, so I'm not sure who I'm kidding...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> I also have a big folder containing the installers for every program
> I've ever downloaded, so I can reinstall them all quickly without having
> to redownload them. (OTOH, I typically end up downloading a newer
> version anyway, so I'm not sure who I'm kidding...)
-Ditto-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I also have a big folder containing the installers for every program
>> I've ever downloaded, so I can reinstall them all quickly without having
>> to redownload them. (OTOH, I typically end up downloading a newer
>> version anyway, so I'm not sure who I'm kidding...)
>
> -Ditto-
I gave up doing that a few years ago. Nowadays I don't install anything
after the OS until I need it, then I download the latest version and
install. Usually faster than searching through CDs anyway ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I also have a big folder containing the installers for every program
>>> I've ever downloaded, so I can reinstall them all quickly without having
>>> to redownload them. (OTOH, I typically end up downloading a newer
>>> version anyway, so I'm not sure who I'm kidding...)
>>
>> -Ditto-
>
> I gave up doing that a few years ago. Nowadays I don't install anything
> after the OS until I need it, then I download the latest version and
> install. Usually faster than searching through CDs anyway ;-)
No no, I keep the installers *on my HD*. ;-) It would take far too many
CDs... (Do you know how big 3Dmark is?? How about WinXP SP3?)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No no, I keep the installers *on my HD*. ;-) It would take far too many
> CDs... (Do you know how big 3Dmark is?? How about WinXP SP3?)
Oh ok, my hard drive wasn't big enough before to do that ;-) I download too
much junk, install it, use it a bit then uninstall it... But yeh, I have
loads of CDs and DVDs full of old versions of certain programs that I
probably should get around to throwing away some day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> I didn't want to be definite.
Me neither ;).
> I *have* seen hard drives designed to
> replace memory sticks in high-end cameras. (Compact Flash-shaped hard
> drives, I think?)
>
Yep, they do exist. But then, it would be pretty hard to fit even 1,8"
hard disk to CF-slot - it's easy to have 3,5" HD mounted in little case
with the USB-interface.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
> But I did it back when I
> only had one drive too. Makes reinstalling the OS that much easier
> without losing work. (If anything on my PC could be considered "work".)
Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the
work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>
>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>
> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
Or just mount the separate volume as a subdirectory of the system
volume. :-)
Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of
other system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including
other drives.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>>
>> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
>> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
>
> Or just mount the separate volume as a subdirectory of the system
> volume. :-)
Does Windoze let you do that yet?
> Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of
> other system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including
> other drives.
Heh. If only that were actually true...
[No, wait. I take that back. If I had *my* way, I'd have that hated My
Documents folder permanently removed.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>
> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
My dad is the only person I know who's tried it, and he has lost far
more data due to RAID glitches than to any physical hardware failure!
Basically, my dad paid £15 for an IDE RAID card and connected two drives
to it in a RAID-1 configuration. Every 6 hours or so, the RAID
controller would "fail" one of the drives and stop using it. Then you'd
have to tell it to rebuilt the array (BE CAREFUL TO SELECT THE RIGHT
SOURCE DRIVE!) and wait many, many hours for that to complete. And then
it would work for another few hours before failing one of the drives again.
In summary, it was hopeless and an utter waste of time.
Now all the *servers* here at work have RAID on them, but they have
expensive high-end UltraSCSI 360 RAID controllers with the
battery-backed RAM and so on and so forth. Nobody is rich enough to put
those in a desktop machine.
>> But I did it back when I only had one drive too. Makes reinstalling
>> the OS that much easier without losing work. (If anything on my PC
>> could be considered "work".)
>
> Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the
> work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).
Backup onto *what*?
I have, like, 100 GB of data now. I'm not aware of anything large enough
to hold that other than another HD. (Or an LTO tape...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>
>> Or just mount the separate volume as a subdirectory of the system
>> volume. :-)
>
> Does Windoze let you do that yet?
Yes, that's also possible. IIRC it came with W2k.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
Yes.
These
aero@grunka ~ $ dmesg|grep 7\:\ ST37
[ 6.425893] ata2.00: ATA-7: ST3750640AS, 3.AAK, max UDMA/133
[ 7.613720] ata4.00: ATA-7: ST3750640AS, 3.AAK, max UDMA/133
[ 8.198858] ata5.00: ATA-7: ST3750640AS, 3.AAK, max UDMA/133
[ 8.783579] ata6.00: ATA-7: ST3750640AS, 3.AAK, max UDMA/133
4pcs of 750G Barracudas give me this:
aero@grunka ~ $ df -h|grep md5
/dev/md5 2.1T 451G 1.7T 22% /home
That's RAID-5 -array, so it can handle a break-up on any of those disks.
These are RAID-1:
aero@grunka ~ $ df -h|egrep 'md0|md2'
/dev/md0 84G 20G 65G 24% /
/dev/md2 88G 22G 67G 25% /netroot
And so are these:
garmaugh ~ # df -h|grep md
/dev/md/0 962M 179M 734M 20% /
/dev/md/2 9.2G 2.1G 6.7G 24% /usr
/dev/md/3 13G 708M 12G 6% /var
> My dad is the only person I know who's tried it, and he has lost far
> more data due to RAID glitches than to any physical hardware failure!
I've also lost some data due to my own stupidity with RAID. OTOH, I've
saved at least 5 times that amount of data from disk breaks with RAID.
> have to tell it to rebuilt the array (BE CAREFUL TO SELECT THE RIGHT
> SOURCE DRIVE!)
I too can tell you that :). That's the way I erased one array - I synced
the empty disk over a fuller one.
> and wait many, many hours for that to complete. And then
> it would work for another few hours before failing one of the drives again.
Freaking slow, if RAID-1 takes many, many hours. That 2-terabyte array
took some hours and it's RAID-5, so the computer had to calculate all
the data. RAID-1 is "only" reading and writing and it's much faster.
> In summary, it was hopeless and an utter waste of time.
In summary, he did it wrong ;).
>> Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the
>> work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).
>
> Backup onto *what*?
Ie. on external HD?
> I have, like, 100 GB of data now. I'm not aware of anything large enough
> to hold that other than another HD. (Or an LTO tape...)
Surf man, surf.
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/143877
Smaller ones are cheaper:
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/128601
Plug it in, sync it (ie. with rsync oslt) and plug it out. Or buy 2 of
them, schedule a sync for every night and manually change the cable to
another drive every day (this is because offline backups are freaking
good idea).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48bc0807$1@news.povray.org...
>>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>>
>> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
>> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
>
> Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
>
Yup. My 'server' has four 160 GB sata drives in a RAID 5 config. Since it's
also my first stage backup location, I wanted redundancy. Just wish I'd
bought larger drives.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48bc06f6$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of other
>> system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including other
>> drives.
>
> Heh. If only that were actually true...
It is true. I can't remember offhand how to do it, but it's very possible
since Win Xp (I think).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail" <gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co [dot] za> wrote in message
news:48bc1bbc@news.povray.org...
>
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:48bc06f6$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>
>>> Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of
>>> other system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including
>>> other drives.
>>
>> Heh. If only that were actually true...
>
> It is true. I can't remember offhand how to do it, but it's very possible
> since Win Xp (I think).
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310147 (for win xp)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of
>>>> other system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including
>>>> other drives.
>>>
>>> Heh. If only that were actually true...
>>
>> It is true. I can't remember offhand how to do it, but it's very
>> possible since Win Xp (I think).
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310147 (for win xp)
Well who'd have thought it. There's actually a UI for that...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
>
> Yes.
>
> That's RAID-5 -array, so it can handle a break-up on any of those disks.
>
> These are RAID-1:
> And so are these:
Is that software RAID or hardware RAID?
My dad went with a hardware RAID solution, and it was utterly useless.
You had to resilver it every few hours because it kept breaking.
>> and wait many, many hours for that to complete. And then it would work
>> for another few hours before failing one of the drives again.
>
> Freaking slow, if RAID-1 takes many, many hours. That 2-terabyte array
> took some hours and it's RAID-5, so the computer had to calculate all
> the data. RAID-1 is "only" reading and writing and it's much faster.
Ever tried to perform a low-level format on a HD? No matter what size it
is, it always takes an extremely long time. (The bigger the drive, the
faster it is, but the power to weight ratio seems fairly constant, so it
always takes a long time.) Formatting a huge drive with, say, FAT or
NTFS only takes a few minutes, but a low-level format takes an hour or more.
Resilvering the mirror was similar. It's mirrored at the hardware level,
so the disks must be block-by-block identical.
>>> Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the
>>> work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).
>>
>> Backup onto *what*?
>
> Ie. on external HD?
Yeah, I guess... Doesn't seem like you're gaining a huge amount, but I
guess it's better than nothing.
>> I have, like, 100 GB of data now. I'm not aware of anything large
>> enough to hold that other than another HD. (Or an LTO tape...)
>
> Surf man, surf.
...in other words, a HD. Like what I said. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
>>
>
> Yup. My 'server' has four 160 GB sata drives in a RAID 5 config. Since
> it's also my first stage backup location, I wanted redundancy. Just wish
> I'd bought larger drives.
Heh. And I thought *I* was crazy for owning just _one_ 160 GB drive in a
home PC...
What on earth do you use it for?
(I filled mine saving large uncompressed videos rendered with POV-Ray.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48bc3c7b$1@news.povray.org...
> My dad went with a hardware RAID solution, and it was utterly useless. You
> had to resilver it every few hours because it kept breaking.
Hardware RAID on a desktop machine? Hardware raid controllers are
exceedingly expensive. Are you sure it wasn't RAID implemented in the
firmware/drivers?
That's far more common on desktop-type machines. It's what I've got in my
'server'
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>>>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
>>> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
>>
>> Or just mount the separate volume as a subdirectory of the system
>> volume. :-)
>
> Does Windoze let you do that yet?
Windows has let you do that for roughly ... since before Windows.
> Heh. If only that were actually true...
It does seem to have a little bit of trouble "sticking" in my
experience. Not sure why. But it's supposed to work, certainly.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> My dad went with a hardware RAID solution, and it was utterly useless.
>> You had to resilver it every few hours because it kept breaking.
>
> Hardware RAID on a desktop machine? Hardware raid controllers are
> exceedingly expensive. Are you sure it wasn't RAID implemented in the
> firmware/drivers?
> That's far more common on desktop-type machines. It's what I've got in
> my 'server'
Didn't require any special drivers for the OS - it just looked like a
regular IDE device. But could quite well be something to do with the
firmware. Like I said, he paid £15 for it.
You'll be unsurprised to hear that he quickly threw it away...
I understand that Linux can do software RAID if you have the right
kernel. Some versions of Windows can too - but IIRC not the desktop
editions? It's not something I've ever really looked at. For me, RAID is
something you only need on mission-critical servers, not desktop
machines and certainly not home PCs. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Resilvering the mirror was similar. It's mirrored at the hardware level,
> so the disks must be block-by-block identical.
That's the killer. At least the Windows software RAID-1 only copies the
used blocks.
> Yeah, I guess... Doesn't seem like you're gaining a huge amount, but I
> guess it's better than nothing.
You're gaining a disk that's nowhere near the machine when the rain
comes in the roof and floods your office. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48bc3cbc$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
>>>
>>
>> Yup. My 'server' has four 160 GB sata drives in a RAID 5 config. Since
>> it's also my first stage backup location, I wanted redundancy. Just wish
>> I'd bought larger drives.
>
> Heh. And I thought *I* was crazy for owning just _one_ 160 GB drive in a
> home PC...
>
> What on earth do you use it for?
Videos
Music
Podcasts
Webcasts
Documents (including large pdfs)
Installation files
Client DB performance data and documents
Backups of data on desktop and laptop
Virtual machine hard drives
It also runs the following:
Active Directory
DNS
SQL Server 2005
Oracle 9i (currently shut down)
Windows Sharepoint (pending reinstallation)
In addition, I'm trying to set up a media service so that the XBox can
stream video and audio from the server.
It's got 480 GB of drive space on the RAID array and it's over half used.
I'll upgrade the drive space sometime, but it's not going to be a simple
operation
My desktop has one 320 GB, one 160 GB and one 80 GB drives.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Resilvering the mirror was similar. It's mirrored at the hardware
>> level, so the disks must be block-by-block identical.
>
> That's the killer. At least the Windows software RAID-1 only copies the
> used blocks.
Indeed. Probably makes it much faster...
Personally, I've never really trusted software RAID. I always prefer a
hardware solution. (But, obviously, those are very expensive. The ones
that work properly, that is...)
>> Yeah, I guess... Doesn't seem like you're gaining a huge amount, but I
>> guess it's better than nothing.
>
> You're gaining a disk that's nowhere near the machine when the rain
> comes in the roof and floods your office. :-)
If *my* office ever _floods_... Well, let's just say I have way bigger
problems than some binary data on a computer. ;-)
(My house is at the top of a hill, and my office is on the 2nd floor.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What on earth do you use it for?
>
> Videos
> Music
> Podcasts
> Webcasts
> Documents (including large pdfs)
> Installation files
> Client DB performance data and documents
> Backups of data on desktop and laptop
> Virtual machine hard drives
...OK, well VM drive images is going to eat that up pretty fast. ;-)
(I have a server at work that's rather full with Ghost images.)
Podcasts and webcasts are (AFAIK) designed to be small so they download
fast.
> Windows Sharepoint (pending reinstallation)
OOC, what does that actually *do*?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull>
Newsgroups: povray.off-topic
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Data recovery
> If *my* office ever _floods_... Well, let's just say I have way bigger
> problems than some binary data on a computer. ;-)
Two words - roof leak
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48bc446f$1@news.povray.org...
> ...OK, well VM drive images is going to eat that up pretty fast. ;-)
The VMs aren't too bad. I don't have too many and I use a differencing drive
method of creating them The os and common apps only exists in one virtual
drive, but can be used by multiple VMs. When I install something into one of
the VMs, all that gets stored is the differences from the base image.
> Podcasts and webcasts are (AFAIK) designed to be small so they download
> fast.
I've got everything from 10 min interviews up to 2 hour conference sessions.
Got a couple of GB in total. More on DVD.
>> Windows Sharepoint (pending reinstallation)
>
> OOC, what does that actually *do*?
It's a glorified web portal with a million addons. There's a lot of demand
for it at the moment in SA, so it's mainly there so I can get some feel for
how it works.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/sharepoint/bb684453.aspx
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Hildur K. wrote:
>
>> Early on (after my first HD crash which
>> wasn´t a physical crash, only a partial wipe out)I went into the habit of
>> dividing my hard drives into partitions. Both my PC´s now have 4
>> partitions, each on a single physical drive, which means I use the
>> primary partition (C) for the OS, drivers and programs, and the other
>> partitions (D,E,F) for all work and data (NEVER saving to "MyDocuments"
>> or "Desktop"). The hard drives are much more reliable nowadays so I´m not
>> so worried about data loss.
>>
>> In the (very likely) case my OS eventually crashes, I can reinstall or
>> upgrade without touching the other partitions so there is no loss of
>> data.
>
> I do this.
>
> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes. But I did it back when I
> only had one drive too. Makes reinstalling the OS that much easier
> without losing work. (If anything on my PC could be considered "work".)
>
> I also have a big folder containing the installers for every program
> I've ever downloaded, so I can reinstall them all quickly without having
> to redownload them. (OTOH, I typically end up downloading a newer
> version anyway, so I'm not sure who I'm kidding...)
When I installed Linux (Ubuntu), I didn't separate /home into a second
partition. Stupid me. Now I want to switch distro, and I know it won't be
such an easy task...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Surf man, surf.
>
> ...in other words, a HD. Like what I said. :-P
Or for a little more (I think they're like 140 pounds now) you can get a
blu-ray writer. Those discs take 50GB each if you get the dual layer ones.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Surf man, surf.
>>
>> ...in other words, a HD. Like what I said. :-P
>
> Or for a little more (I think they're like 140 pounds now) you can get a
> blu-ray writer. Those discs take 50GB each if you get the dual layer ones.
Really? I knew BluRay was higher capacity, but I didn't know it was
quite that much...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
