So there I am, building a moss macro whilst my snow macro scene is rendering 
a demonstration of ice coating, and all of a sudden my computer reboots. I'm 
think: "ok, that was annoying"...and then the intel storage matrix ROM comes 
up, telling me that the drive on port 1 has failed and its rebuilding the 
volume. Wonderful.

So now I have to get a new 250gb HDD.

I have another open HDD bay, can I add another SATA HDD to the RAID1 matrix, 
or do I need two more?

This crap is why my computer is RAID1, which is backed up on an external 
HDD, which itsself is backed up on yet another external HDD.
It seems HDDs like to fail after about 2yrs of 12+hr a day use. Boooo!

What happened to those cool datacrystals they invented in the late 80's? 
They were featured on a show called Beyond 2000, and shortly thereafter all 
information about them vanished. Now most references to them you find via 
google arfe other people asking this same question. Maybe the gov't snatched 
them up?

ian

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> What happened to those cool datacrystals they invented in the late 80's? 

I remember those. A terabyte in a cubic cm, with 3D lasers changing the 
color of the dye.  It was a military project, so maybe it's powering skynet now.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

> I remember those. A terabyte in a cubic cm, with 3D lasers changing the 
> color of the dye.  It was a military project, so maybe it's powering 
> skynet now.

The brits actually have a system called skynet.

I'm not kidding. :(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6434773.stm

Someone who developed that obviously had a sense of humor.

ian

Post a reply to this message

> I have another open HDD bay, can I add another SATA HDD to the RAID1 
> matrix, or do I need two more?

You should be able to plug in a new drive and mirror the one that still 
works to rebuild the array. Just make sure you select the right one to 
mirror :)

I have gone through about 3 drives in the last 4 years and just mirror the 
data each time, along with occasional backups of important files onto DVD.

Post a reply to this message

Sweet!
Thanks for the info.
I have to work on this machine in its current state until I can get a drive 
tomorrow, but its creeping slow...will I mess anything up by continuing to 
use it in this state, or installing stuff?

ian

"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:49ab6a09$1@news.povray.org...
>> I have another open HDD bay, can I add another SATA HDD to the RAID1 
>> matrix, or do I need two more?
>
> You should be able to plug in a new drive and mirror the one that still 
> works to rebuild the array. Just make sure you select the right one to 
> mirror :)
>
> I have gone through about 3 drives in the last 4 years and just mirror the 
> data each time, along with occasional backups of important files onto DVD.
>

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:

> It seems HDDs like to fail after about 2yrs of 12+hr a day use. Boooo!

Really? You have far worse luck than me...

I had 5 servers containing a grand total of 19 harddrives. That setup 
ran for quite a while without any failures at all. Indeed, some of the 
servers here ran for 8 years or so with 0 failures out of 4 drives.

So many server-class Ultra320 SCSI drives are made of stronger stuff 
than normal desktop drives. (Certainly they have a price tag several 
times higher...)

Amoung all the computers I've been called on to fix, I can once again 
count the number of drive failures on one hand. (Laptops do seem to fail 
somewhat more often.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>
> > It seems HDDs like to fail after about 2yrs of 12+hr a day use. Boooo!
> Amoung all the computers I've been called on to fix, I can once again
> count the number of drive failures on one hand. (Laptops do seem to fail
> somewhat more often.)

I'm similar; I've never had a HD fail. Run out of space, yes, even stolen, but
no HD I've ever used has ever gone pop. I guess I'm just not a particularly
'high-impact' user...

I back up, of course, paranoiacally frequently. But, touch wood, I've never
needed to restore a backup yet.

(Of course, now I've said that, every drive in my various machines will expire
catastrophically over the next 24 hours)

Post a reply to this message

>>> It seems HDDs like to fail after about 2yrs of 12+hr a day use. Boooo!
>> Amoung all the computers I've been called on to fix, I can once again
>> count the number of drive failures on one hand. (Laptops do seem to fail
>> somewhat more often.)
> 
> I'm similar; I've never had a HD fail. Run out of space, yes, even stolen, but
> no HD I've ever used has ever gone pop. I guess I'm just not a particularly
> 'high-impact' user...
> 
> I back up, of course, paranoiacally frequently. But, touch wood, I've never
> needed to restore a backup yet.
> 
> (Of course, now I've said that, every drive in my various machines will expire
> catastrophically over the next 24 hours)

Oh, I've had drives fail. Just not very often.

I would backup by data - but what exactly do you back 200GB up onto? 
Besides, most of it isn't very valuable data.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49abae48$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Really? You have far worse luck than me...
>

Yes, my luck is particularly bad. For instance: 1 month ago I hit a patch of 
black ice and had a motorcycle accident (not much damage), that same night I 
went from feeling ok to hacking up all manners of ungodly crap, which turned 
into pneumonia, which I am still recovering from. Now my HDD failed.

I had a WD Premium mybook fail before too.

I tend to hit the HDDs pretty hard, and I have more than a Tb of data 
between all of my various drives from the past 14 years I've worked with 
computers. I've managed to keep it fairly well organized, amazingly enough.

ian

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> It seems HDDs like to fail after about 2yrs of 12+hr a day use. Boooo!
> >> Amoung all the computers I've been called on to fix, I can once again
> >> count the number of drive failures on one hand. (Laptops do seem to fail
> >> somewhat more often.)
> >
> > I'm similar; I've never had a HD fail. Run out of space, yes, even stolen, but
> > no HD I've ever used has ever gone pop. I guess I'm just not a particularly
> > 'high-impact' user...
> >
> > I back up, of course, paranoiacally frequently. But, touch wood, I've never
> > needed to restore a backup yet.
> >
> > (Of course, now I've said that, every drive in my various machines will expire
> > catastrophically over the next 24 hours)
>
> Oh, I've had drives fail. Just not very often.
>
> I would backup by data - but what exactly do you back 200GB up onto?
> Besides, most of it isn't very valuable data.

Most of what I backup is photos. The rest is coding projects, lots of POV, odd
documents... As for where to - external HD, of course.

Post a reply to this message

>> I would backup by data - but what exactly do you back 200GB up onto?
>> Besides, most of it isn't very valuable data.
> 
> Most of what I backup is photos. The rest is coding projects, lots of POV, odd
> documents... As for where to - external HD, of course.

Uhuh. And this second HD is less likely to fail... why, exactly?

Post a reply to this message

>> Most of what I backup is photos. The rest is coding projects, lots of 
>> POV, odd
>> documents... As for where to - external HD, of course.
>
> Uhuh. And this second HD is less likely to fail... why, exactly?

The point is that in order to lose your data, the 2nd drive needs to fail 
after the 1st one has failed but before you have a chance to copy back the 
data to the replacement, so maybe 3 or 4 days.  The probability of that 
happening is much less than a single drive failing at some point.  If you 
are really paranoid, then just buy 2 external HDs (different brands might be 
a good idea), they are ridiculously cheap nowadays anyway.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> I would backup by data - but what exactly do you back 200GB up onto?
> >> Besides, most of it isn't very valuable data.
> >
> > Most of what I backup is photos. The rest is coding projects, lots of POV, odd
> > documents... As for where to - external HD, of course.
>
> Uhuh. And this second HD is less likely to fail... why, exactly?

Well, I guess some drives fail arbitrarily, but I would think a drive that gets
hammered constantly is more likely to fail than one that just gets one long
write sequence every week.

And, what Scott said.

(okay, so maybe 'paranoiacally frequently' was innaccurate, especially compared
with RAID...:)!)

Post a reply to this message

>>>> I would backup by data - but what exactly do you back 200GB up onto?
>>>> Besides, most of it isn't very valuable data.
>>> Most of what I backup is photos. The rest is coding projects, lots of POV, odd
>>> documents... As for where to - external HD, of course.
>> Uhuh. And this second HD is less likely to fail... why, exactly?
> 
> Well, I guess some drives fail arbitrarily, but I would think a drive that gets
> hammered constantly is more likely to fail than one that just gets one long
> write sequence every week.
> 
> And, what Scott said.
> 
> (okay, so maybe 'paranoiacally frequently' was innaccurate, especially compared
> with RAID...:)!)

I was under the impression that power cycles stress a HD more than 
regular use... But hey, having duplicate copies has gotta be better than 
not having them I guess.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> of that happening is much less than a single drive failing at some 
> point. 

Especially if the second drive is only turned on for backups (like a USB 
drive, for example).

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

"[GDS|Entropy]" <gds### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:49ab6fcb@news.povray.org...
> Sweet!
> Thanks for the info.
> I have to work on this machine in its current state until I can get a 
> drive tomorrow, but its creeping slow...will I mess anything up by 
> continuing to use it in this state, or installing stuff?

Should not matter. When you mirror you are just creating a copy of the 
current drive state.

However, keep in mind that the chance of total failure was much lower with 
two drives than you have now with one.

Mike


> ian
>
> "Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
> news:49ab6a09$1@news.povray.org...
>>> I have another open HDD bay, can I add another SATA HDD to the RAID1 
>>> matrix, or do I need two more?
>>
>> You should be able to plug in a new drive and mirror the one that still 
>> works to rebuild the array. Just make sure you select the right one to 
>> mirror :)
>>
>> I have gone through about 3 drives in the last 4 years and just mirror 
>> the data each time, along with occasional backups of important files onto 
>> DVD.
>>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Its cool now, I've replaced my dead(?) drive.
When my system recovered from a critical error, which is when this happened, 
microsoft said it was caused by my AV. Is it possible that my HDD isn't 
really dead?

If it is still chill, I'm going to throw it back in the matrix with my new 
one, so I'll have 3.
Anyone know anything about that? MSs' description was kinda dubiously 
ambiguous.

I think I'm going to get two of those nice WD 1Tb RAID 1 mirrored external 
USB units, crap, they are only $199 at tiger direct now, they would be 
perfect.

ian

"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:49ac44a2@news.povray.org...
> "[GDS|Entropy]" <gds### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
> news:49ab6fcb@news.povray.org...
>> Sweet!
>> Thanks for the info.
>> I have to work on this machine in its current state until I can get a 
>> drive tomorrow, but its creeping slow...will I mess anything up by 
>> continuing to use it in this state, or installing stuff?
>
> Should not matter. When you mirror you are just creating a copy of the 
> current drive state.
>
> However, keep in mind that the chance of total failure was much lower with 
> two drives than you have now with one.
>
> Mike
>
>
>> ian
>>
>> "Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
>> news:49ab6a09$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> I have another open HDD bay, can I add another SATA HDD to the RAID1 
>>>> matrix, or do I need two more?
>>>
>>> You should be able to plug in a new drive and mirror the one that still 
>>> works to rebuild the array. Just make sure you select the right one to 
>>> mirror :)
>>>
>>> I have gone through about 3 drives in the last 4 years and just mirror 
>>> the data each time, along with occasional backups of important files 
>>> onto DVD.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

If you use Windows or another OS with Power Management make the HHDs 
sleep after 10 mins of inactivity, that a check with a diag program like 
everest (www.lavalys.com) to see the temp of them, if they're above 40, 
buy them HDDs coolers, but you must be careful: if the coolers have no 
shor-circuit protection (like the ones in my country) the moment the 
fans stop spinning they will short-circuited probably damaging your 
power supply, but if the coolers have the protection you are OK.

I tell the user if you hear a weird sound call me, is time to 
re-lubricate the HDD coolers' fans and you are fine for another year or so.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> If you use Windows or another OS with Power Management make the HHDs
> sleep after 10 mins of inactivity

There is no such thing as "inactivity" on my computer.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> If you use Windows or another OS with Power Management make the HHDs
>> sleep after 10 mins of inactivity
> 
> There is no such thing as "inactivity" on my computer.
hahaha, well my friend you could then try to buy a HDD that spins slower 
  to avoid rapid wear off, cheers :)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> If you use Windows or another OS with Power Management make the HHDs
>> sleep after 10 mins of inactivity
> 
> There is no such thing as "inactivity" on my computer.

Buy more RAM. Lots of it :).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Yeah I have 4gb of it, but since this is win32 and not 64..... :-|
I do *have* win 64...in fact all of them, from MSDN....but I'm not prepared 
to give all of my 32bit apps just yet.

I guess I'll just be buying lots of HDD...

ian

"Eero Ahonen" <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote in message 
news:49aed3fa@news.povray.org...
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> If you use Windows or another OS with Power Management make the HHDs
>>> sleep after 10 mins of inactivity
>>
>> There is no such thing as "inactivity" on my computer.
>
> Buy more RAM. Lots of it :).
>
> -Aero
>

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> I do *have* win 64...in fact all of them, from MSDN....but I'm not prepared 
> to give all of my 32bit apps just yet.

I've not found any 32-bit apps that don't run fine under 64-bit windows. 
Many more fail due to it being Vista than due to it being x64.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Really?

Well, vista can go rot. So you think I would do well to go on and install xp 
pro 64?

ian

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:49aeefd6$1@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> I do *have* win 64...in fact all of them, from MSDN....but I'm not 
>> prepared to give all of my 32bit apps just yet.
>
> I've not found any 32-bit apps that don't run fine under 64-bit windows. 
> Many more fail due to it being Vista than due to it being x64.
>
> -- 
>   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
>   unable to read this, even at arm's length."
>

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> So you think I would do well to go on and install xp pro 64?

I think you probably won't have a problem with it, but I can't attest to 
that directly. Certainly back up your system with a full backup before you 
wipe it. :-)  I suggest "DriveXML" as a good free program that backs up and 
restores XP drives quite well. Check out the BartPE stuff if you're worried 
about it, or use a new drive until you're confident it works.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> Yeah I have 4gb of it, but since this is win32 and not 64..... :-|
> I do *have* win 64...in fact all of them, from MSDN....but I'm not prepared 
> to give all of my 32bit apps just yet.
> 
> I guess I'll just be buying lots of HDD...
> 
> ian
> 
> "Eero Ahonen" <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote in message 
> news:49aed3fa@news.povray.org...
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>>> If you use Windows or another OS with Power Management make the HHDs
>>>> sleep after 10 mins of inactivity
>>> There is no such thing as "inactivity" on my computer.
>> Buy more RAM. Lots of it :).
>>
>> -Aero
>>
> 
> 
You get free Winsows XP 64-bit from MSDN? if so, can you put the links 
here or e-mailme with them please? if not how did you get those WinXP 
64-bit?

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You get free Winsows XP 64-bit from MSDN? 

I'm guessing he meant he got it by subscribing to MSDN, not that he 
downloaded it off the MSDN website. When you pay an annual fee, MS will send 
you copies of and licenses for a whole bunch of software, including all 
their operating systems, which you can use for development and testing 
purposes. But it's not free as in "downloadable to the world."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:

> You get free Winsows XP 64-bit from MSDN? if so, can you put the links 
> here or e-mailme with them please? if not how did you get those WinXP 
> 64-bit?
> 
> Cheers.

It comes with the subscription. subscribe to MSDN, and you, too can have 
access to all versions of Windows.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> It comes with the subscription. subscribe to MSDN, and you, too can have 
> access to all versions of Windows.

Really? That's interesting. I wonder what the license terms are like? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Really? That's interesting. I wonder what the license terms are like? ;-)

you can use it for testing only ...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> Really? That's interesting. I wonder what the license terms are like? ;-)
> 
> you can use it for testing only ...

Yeah. Like 12 year old kids are going to care about a little detail like 
*that*! ;-)

How much does an MSDN subscription cost?

Post a reply to this message

Well, you also get 10 licenses to prettymuch everything MS makes, including 
the OSs (IIRC), and the premium subscription is about $2k. There is one with 
VSTS but its like $10k, the rest just include VSpro. If you get it with 
VSpro you have even more valid licenses, because VSpro comes with winderz 
and SQL server dev too.

Just be prepared to get craploads of DVDs in the mail, along with MSDN mag 
if you choose to. You can order (for free) another bigger MSDN binder for 
all of the podcasts, indexes, service packs, servers, and other crap they 
send you. You'll need it. Seriously I have about 20lbs of crap they sent 
from just the last year, including the mags.

They send you things early too, so I knew I hated vista since early/mid 2006 
when they sent it to me.
Vista...*hrrnk!*..oh god...*vomits explosively*

ian

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49afd18a$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Really? That's interesting. I wonder what the license terms are like? 
>>> ;-)
>>
>> you can use it for testing only ...
>
> Yeah. Like 12 year old kids are going to care about a little detail like 
> *that*! ;-)
>
> How much does an MSDN subscription cost?
>

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> Vista...*hrrnk!*..oh god...*vomits explosively*

Out of curiousity, what do you not like about it?  To me, it's so close to 
XP as to make no nevermind. Prettier, a little more convenient in some ways, 
a little less in other ways....

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Mostly my problem with it is that anything that I want to do takes longer, 
uses more ram and vidram, and maxes the processor. Even using a win98 theme.
I did install it on an old computer, but that isn't any excuse, as xp pro 
worked just fine on it and did so quickly.

ian

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:49affc3d@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> Vista...*hrrnk!*..oh god...*vomits explosively*
>
> Out of curiousity, what do you not like about it?  To me, it's so close to 
> XP as to make no nevermind. Prettier, a little more convenient in some 
> ways, a little less in other ways....
>
> -- 
>   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
>   unable to read this, even at arm's length."
>

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] <gds### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Mostly my problem with it is that anything that I want to do takes longer, 
> uses more ram and vidram, and maxes the processor. Even using a win98 theme.
> I did install it on an old computer, but that isn't any excuse, as xp pro 
> worked just fine on it and did so quickly.

  While I can't talk from real experience and knowledge, I have the
understanding that with Vista (and the Windows line in general) you don't
even have any choice: The OS will consume significant amounts of RAM and
other resources, period. There's little you can do to reduce the footprint
of the OS even if you wanted to. (Ok, this might not be entirely true, as
memory consumption and speed could probably be improved by a simple change
in the GUI theme, etc, but I'd dare to say that there's a limit under which
you just can't go no matter what, at least not without seriously crippling
the entire system, and that this limit is still pretty high.)

  This is because Windows has been designed to be a rather monolithic OS
(not to be confused with "monolithic kernel", which is not at all what
I'm talking about): Things like the GUI (including its API, etc) are
integral parts of the OS and cannot be separated from it (at least not
with serious hacking, which will probably cripple the system). While this
has some advantages (eg. programs become more compatible because there's
only one single API for anything any program might need), it also has its
disadvantages: The OS becomes large and heavy, and you have little choice
about this.

  The design philosophy of Unix in general and Linux in particular is
rather different: The Operating System itself (which is basically
comprised of the kernel and its modules) is deliberately kept completely
separate from the GUI system (which in case of Unix is de-facto usually
the X Windowing System).

  This separation can be clearly seen. The OS is in no way tied to the
GUI system, and the GUI system is in no way tied to the OS. You can run
the OS without any GUI system whatsoever (usually with a console interface),
and the X Windowing System implementations are usually more or easily
portable to different kernels (eg. X11 has been ported to the Linux, BSD,
Solaris and Darwin kernels, among others).

  Even the de-facto GUI system for Unix-style OS's follows the same
principle internally: The X Windowing System specification is not tied
to any particular Window Manager. This is the reason why you have such
an ample choice of managers, such as Gnome, KDE (which are heavy but
pretty) and other more lightweight options.

  This means that if you need a lightweight OS, you can build one that is
(or use a pre-built distro which has been designed to be lightweight),
as the entire system is very customizable.

  For example a server which has no monitor nor even a graphics card
does not need a GUI, and thus you can install a very lightwright Linux
system in it which has no GUI support (with the consequent overhead)
whatsoever.

  If you need to run Linux on an older computer (eg. a 486) which is too
slow to run the latest eyecandy (ie. KDE or Gnome), but you still need
it to be graphical, you can choose a lightweight implementation of the
X Windowing System and an ultralight window manager for it.

  So you will still be running the latest version of Linux (as a whole,
including the kernel, its modules, the X Windowing System as well as the
window manager), but on a very old computer without problems. Something
like Vista will probably outright refuse to install in such a computer,
let alone run.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> How much does an MSDN subscription cost?

It's really targeted for companies, not individuals. That should answer your
question...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> You get free Winsows XP 64-bit from MSDN? 
> 
> I'm guessing he meant he got it by subscribing to MSDN, not that he 
> downloaded it off the MSDN website. When you pay an annual fee, MS will 
> send you copies of and licenses for a whole bunch of software, including 
> all their operating systems, which you can use for development and 
> testing purposes. But it's not free as in "downloadable to the world."
> 
Got it, thx.

Post a reply to this message