UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

[xModem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome#Characteristics

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_Syndrome

 

[kony]

Lying, as always. I dont ever do anything like that.

So you either forget to qualify your answer, or it's a "I
wouldn't but it's ok for someone else", situation?

ANYTHING THAT CANT BE READILY
REPLACED IS ALWAYS FULLY BACKED UP.

yes, a nice theory... so you make these backups on a file by
file basis, or at least are seeming to suggest either this
or that everyone is running RAID arrays. We both know
neither of these are happening in many cases.

Pathological liar.

You continue to overlook system downtime.
Even on a personal PC, it is inconvenient to have to restore
a backup or swap in another RAID member contrasted with the
replacement at another time, when it's convenient and before
the old drive fails.

Wrong, as always. That is done with
every single document that matters.

Your ideal is not seen in reality, and it still doesn't
counter the downtime from failure, the time to restore
backups, or the loss of performance from continuing to use
an old drive.

System downtime doesnt matter a damn with most personal
desktop systems with the sorts of failure rates actually seen
with hard drives that are over 4 years old.

Of course it does matter. While it may not be hundreds to
thousands of dollars loss, we're not talking about high
expense to replace the drive either, again it is possible to
get one for $40 and divided by # of years used, quite
inexpensive.

If system downtime is crucial, anyone with a clue
uses a config which has no system downtime.

"A config"? Which magic config is that Rod?
Hot-swap SCSI or SATA perhaps but you are the one already
citing costs. Anything else and the time to restore data is
still downtime from use.

No gamble what so ever involved in ensuring that anything
that matters is ALWAYS backed up and having whatever is
needed to adequately cover system downtime requirements.

A nice vague theory until examined more closely and
contrasted with the trivial cost of drive replacement before
they fail.

Wrong again, most obviously with mirroring.

So do you continue using these mirrors after drives have
failed, until it's no longer a mirror, OR, do you replace
the failed members and see that DOWNTIME you pretend doesn't
exist. Downtime doesn't have to mean system is unplugged
and all internals spread everywhere, only being down (from
intended use).

Yes it does, even countering the house burning down etc.

Your mirror covers that?

No point in bothering to do that when the system has been
adequately configured to ensure that nothing can ever be lost.

There's still downtime, and/or higher cost which was one of
the reasons you'd already cited. Granted, it does cause
downtime to replace the old drive too but with one important
difference, that it's scheduled at the convenience of the
user.

AND you have just plucked that 4 years out of your arse anyway.

Yes 4 years is somewhat arbitrary, some companies do it
every two, or three, but none wait 5 AFAIK. 4 years also
factors for cost per year.

You dont have a shred of rigorous statistical evidence for
swapping the drive after 4 years instead of say 2 years or 6.

It's about weighing risk against cost. If we want to be
thorough, sure, if your drive is 6 years old instead of 4 I
do still recommend replacing it before it fails rather than
as a result of it.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some stupid pseudokraut that cant even manage to get even the
simplest stuff like what mp3s are about right, desperately cowering
behind Osiris' wrote just the puerile shit that you'd expect from a
desperately cowering pseudokraut that cant even manage to get
even the simplest stuff like what mp3s are about to spew.

 

[Rod Speed]

So you either forget to qualify your answer,

I didnt forget anything, child.

or it's a "I wouldn't but it's ok for someone else", situation?

Wrong, as always.

yes, a nice theory...

Taint a theory, child.

so you make these backups on a file by file basis,

Yes, with the most critical stuff. Not to protect against
hard drive death, but because that is desirable for other
reasons, so its easy to backtrack when I have started to
modify some code and have discovered a damned good
reason why the approach has a serious downside etc
that I did not anticipate. That AUTOMATICALLY provides
complete protection against hard drive failure too.

or at least are seeming to suggest either
this or that everyone is running RAID arrays.

You need to get your seems machinery seen to, child.

I used the word mirror for a reason.

We both know neither of these are happening in many cases.

Irrelevant to whether there is any point in replacing physical
drives at some rate you have plucked from your arse WHEN
YOU HAVE ENSURED THAT YOU CANT LOSE ANYTHING
THAT MATTERS IF A HARD DRIVE DOES FAIL.

You continue to overlook system downtime.

Lying, as always. I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT THE FAILURE
RATE I SEE WITH HARD DRIVES IS SO LOW THAT SYSTEM
DOWNTIME ISNT SOMETHING THAT MATTERS HERE.

I get vastly more system downtime from just reconfiguring systems
as I change what I am doing on a particular PC over time etc and
other stuff like the mains power not being available for hours etc.

Even on a personal PC, it is inconvenient to have to restore a backup

Wrong when that has never actually been necessary over decades now.

MORE DOWNTIME IS INVOLVED WITH REPLACING THE HARD
DRIVE ON SOME CALENDAR BASIS THAT YOU HAVE PLUCKED
OUT OF YOUR ARSE WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY IS THE APPROPRIATE ONE, WHEN THAT REPLACEMENT
IS ACTUALLY INFINITELY HIGHER THAN I ACTUALLY SEE WITH
FAILING HARD DRIVES.

or swap in another RAID member contrasted with the replacement
at another time, when it's convenient and before the old drive fails.

The whole point of true RAID, where the R actually means redundant,
is that you get to replace the failed hard drive when its convenient, child.

Your ideal is not seen in reality,

Wrong again. It is here, child.

and it still doesn't counter the downtime
from failure, the time to restore backups,

WHICH IS MUCH LESS THAN THE DOWNTIME AND TIME
TO RESTORE THAT IS INVOLVED WITH MINDLESSLY
REPLACING THE HARD DRIVE EVERY 4 YEARS, CHILD.

or the loss of performance from continuing to use an old drive.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

I replace drives when they become too small, AT A HIGHER
RATE THAN YOUR STUPID 4 YEARS THAT YOU HAVE
PLUCKED OUT OF YOUR ARSE, so I get BETTER
performance than I would get if I left the replacement for 4 years.

And when I reused a drive that was much older than 4 years
on another PC where that drive was plenty big enough, and
discovered that the boot time of that system was irritatingly
slow, I replaced it with another that was also older than 4
years to get a better boot performance. The machine is
rebooted infrequently enough that it wasnt worth buying a
new drive for since it was always an interim config which
has been entirely replaced with a wireless laptop which
give much better instant on than that system with a brand
new hard drive could ever have, and the much more
convenient portability that a wireless laptop brings with it.

Of course it does matter.

Nope, NOT WHEN THE DOWNTIME NECESSARY TO CHANGE
THE HARD DRIVE EVERY 4 YEARS IS MORE THAN THE
DOWNTIME SEEN DUE TO HARD DRIVE FAILURE.

While it may not be hundreds to thousands of dollars loss,
we're not talking about high expense to replace the drive
either, again it is possible to get one for $40 and divided
by # of years used, quite inexpensive.

STILL NO POINT IN INCREASING THE SYSTEM DOWNTIME
TO SWAP THE DRIVE WHEN THE DOWNTIME SEEN DUE TO
HARD DRIVE FAILURE WILL BE MUCH LOWER.

INFINITELY LOWER IN FACT WHEN MOST PERSONAL DESKTOP
SYSTEM NEVER ACTUALLY SEE A HARD DRIVE FAILURE.

The only thing that makes any sense at all is to
have full backups of anything that matters, so its
a complete yawn if the hard drive does actually die.

"A config"? Which magic config is that Rod?

Nothing magic about it, gutless.

Hot-swap SCSI or SATA perhaps

No perhaps about it, child.

but you are the one already citing costs.

Hot swap SATA doesnt cost a cent more, child.

Anything else and the time to restore
data is still downtime from use.

PITY ITS MUCH LESS THAN THE DOWNTIME YOU SEE IF YOU
ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO SWAP THE DRIVE EVERY 4 YEARS.

A nice vague theory until examined more closely and contrasted
with the trivial cost of drive replacement before they fail.

PITY THAT THE DOWNTIME INVOLVED IN MINDLESSLY SWAPPING
THE DRIVE EVERY 4 YEARS IS VASTLY HIGHER THAN THE
DOWNTIME ACTUALLY SEEN DUE TO HARD DRIVE FAILURE.

So do you continue using these mirrors after drives have failed,
until it's no longer a mirror, OR, do you replace the failed members

ONLY IF THEY DO ACTUALLY FAIL, CHILD.

and see that DOWNTIME you pretend doesn't exist.

Lying, as always.

Downtime doesn't have to mean system is unplugged and all
internals spread everywhere, only being down (from intended use).

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist gutless lying children ?

THE DOWNTIME I SEE, HOWEVER YOU DEFINE THAT, IS
VASTLY LESS WHEN I REPLACE HARD DRIVES WHEN THEY
FAIL THAN I WOULD SEE IF I MINDLESSLY REPLACED ALL
HARD DRIVES ONCE THEY GET PAST 4 YEARS OLD.

Your mirror covers that?
Yep.

There's still downtime,

WHICH IS HIGHER IF YOU MINDLESSLY REPLACE ALL DRIVES
ONCE THEY GET OLDER THAN 4 YEARS OLD, INSTEAD OF
REPLACING THEM ONLY WHEN THEY ACTUALLY FAIL.

and/or higher cost

YOURS IS THE HIGHER COST APPROACH.

which was one of the reasons you'd already cited.

Lying, as always.

Granted, it does cause downtime to replace the old drive too

Funny that. AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE THAN REPLACING
THE DRIVE WHEN IT DOES ACTUALLY FAIL TOO.

but with one important difference, that it's
scheduled at the convenience of the user.

Completely academic with the failure rate of hard drives actually
seen with properly configured personal desktop systems.

Yes 4 years is somewhat arbitrary,

Plucked out of your arse.

some companies do it every two, or three, but none wait 5 AFAIK.

Plenty dont bother to swap on a calendar basis.

4 years also factors for cost per year.
Waffle.

It's about weighing risk against cost.

AND WITH PERSONAL DESKTOP SYSTEMS, THE COST IN
DOWNTIME AND HARD DRIVE EXPENSES IS ACTUALLY LOWER
IF YOU ARENT STUPID ENOUGH TO MINDLESSLY SWAP DRIVES
AT SOME RATE YOU HAVE PLUCKED OUT OF YOUR ARSE.

If we want to be thorough, sure, if your drive is 6 years old instead of 4
I do still recommend replacing it before it fails rather than as a result of it.

No one actually gives a flying red **** what some fool like you 'recommends', child.

Some of us have been doing this stuff before you were even born, child.

And have enough of a clue to have noticed that the downtime
involved with adequately backed up personal desktop systems
is actually LOWER if you dont mindlessly replace hard drives
on some calendar basis that you have plucked from your arse.

 

[xModem]

Some stupid pseudokraut that cant even manage to get even the
simplest stuff like what mp3s are about, desperately cowering behind
Osiris' wrote just the puerile shit that you'd expect from a desperately
cowering pseudokraut that cant even manage to get even the simplest
stuff like what mp3s are about to spew.

pseudokraut?
Jesus Christ, a racist ****wit too.

 

[kony]

No one actually gives a flying red **** what some fool like you 'recommends', child.

Some of us have been doing this stuff before you were even born, child.

Rod you seem to like jumping to conclusions. I was sorting
EOL punch cards 3 decades ago, and I don't think they'd even
let you in the room, Rod, let alone touch anything.

The FACT is, businesses do periodically replace drives
rather than running 'em into the ground. If you prefer the
disaster-recovery approach to maintaining data, have fun
with it, LOL.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod you seem to like jumping to conclusions.

We'll see...

I was sorting EOL punch cards 3 decades ago, and I don't think
they'd even let you in the room, Rod, let alone touch anything.

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got
egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again.

The FACT is, businesses do periodically replace
drives rather than running 'em into the ground.

Irrelevant to whether that makes any sense at all with
personal desktop systems WHERE THERE IS MORE
DOWNTIME AND MORE EXPENSE THAN HAVING
THE SYSTEM PROPERLY BACKED UP AND
REPLACING THE DRIVE WHEN IT FAILS AS
ITS VERY VERY UNLIKELY TO ACTUALLY DO.

If you prefer the disaster-recovery approach to maintaining data,

Lying, as it always does when its got done like a dinner, yet again.

have fun with it, LOL.

Cackling like a village eejut cuts no mustard, child.

 

[kony]

We'll see...

We'll see what Rod?

you've made a saga out of it.

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got
egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again.

Oh no! Rod seems to have slipped into troll mode again.

Irrelevant to whether that makes any sense at all with
personal desktop systems WHERE THERE IS MORE
DOWNTIME AND MORE EXPENSE THAN HAVING
THE SYSTEM PROPERLY BACKED UP AND
REPLACING THE DRIVE WHEN IT FAILS AS
ITS VERY VERY UNLIKELY TO ACTUALLY DO.

No Rod, as already mentioned a replacement drive can be had
for $40 AR, and with 4 year replacement interval that's $10
per year. Your suggestion was a second drive for raid,
which is a similar expense (no, actually more expensive
since 4 years ago it wouldn't have been SATA, had to be SCSI
hot-plug, else there's still the downtime to turn off system
and install new replacement PAIR of PATA drives).

So you replace both Rod, or only use small % of the new
replacement drive since in 4 years' time they won't sell the
same capacity as new stock anymore. Then there's the other
backup media which you also try to claim is less expensive
(as you wrote "MORE EXPENSE" for the drive replacement
interval) but is also more expensive.

I don't suggest doing without backup Rod, rather that the
cost of a routine drive replacement every few years is not
high, and can be warranted to prevent this failure. Even a
recoverable failure is worse than NO failure.

Lying, as it always does when its got done like a dinner, yet again.

Oh? Then do tell Rod, do you pretend to know 15 minutes
ahead of time when a drive will die of old age so you can
replace it moments before that happens? If not,
"disaster-recovery" is the scenario you face when assuming
you can run a drive for years longer.

Some drives will run years longer of course, and others
won't. So you either gamble or spend a paltry sum and reap
a performance benefit too.

 

[Rod Speed]

We'll see what Rod?

We'll see if you can ever manage to bullshit your way
out of your predicament, even just this once, gutless.

you've made a saga out of it.

Lying, as always.

You're the fool so stupid that it cant even manage to work out
that MORE DOWNTIME IS INVOLVED IN SWAPPING OUT A
PERFECTLY GOOD HARD DRIVE JUST BECAUSE ITS OLDER
THAN SOME NUMBER YOU HAVE PLUCKED OUT OF YOUR
ARSE, INSTEAD OF JUST ENSURING THAT WHAT MATTERS
IS PROPERLY BACKED UP AND REPLACING THE DRIVE IN THE
UNLIKELY EVENT THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY DIE BEFORE IT
BECOMES TOO SMALL AND SLOW TO BOTHER WITH ANYMORE.

Oh no! Rod seems to have slipped into troll mode again.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

No Rod, as already mentioned a replacement drive can be had for
$40 AR, and with 4 year replacement interval that's $10 per year.

Irrelevant to whether there is any point what so ever in
SWAPPING OUT A PERFECTLY GOOD HARD DRIVE
JUST BECAUSE ITS OLDER THAN SOME NUMBER YOU
HAVE PLUCKED OUT OF YOUR ARSE, INSTEAD OF JUST
ENSURING THAT WHAT MATTERS IS PROPERLY BACKED
UP AND REPLACING THE DRIVE IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT
THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY DIE BEFORE IT BECOMES TOO
SMALL AND SLOW TO BOTHER WITH ANYMORE.

Your suggestion was a second drive for raid,

Lying, as always.

which is a similar expense (no, actually more expensive
since 4 years ago it wouldn't have been SATA, had to be
SCSI hot-plug, else there's still the downtime to turn off
system and install new replacement PAIR of PATA drives).

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have ever
ever had a ****ing clue about how to backup what matters.

Or anything else at all, either.

So you replace both Rod, or only use small % of the
new replacement drive since in 4 years' time they
won't sell the same capacity as new stock anymore.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have ever
ever had a ****ing clue about how to backup what matters.

Or anything else at all, either.

Then there's the other backup media which
you also try to claim is less expensive

Lying, as always.

(as you wrote "MORE EXPENSE" for the drive replacement interval)

Lying, as always.

but is also more expensive.

Lying, as always.

I don't suggest doing without backup Rod, rather that the cost
of a routine drive replacement every few years is not high,

Mindless silly stuff when you need a lot more drive capacity
than that pathetic obsolete drive you keep waving around.

and can be warranted to prevent this failure.

Nope, cant ever when there is actually LESS chance of the drive
failing between years 4 and 5 than there was in the first year.

So if your backup system was adequate for that higher risk
first year, its STILL perfectly adequate for year 5 as well.

AND YOU SAVE A HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN $40 WHEN
YOU NEED MORE STORAGE CAPACITY THAN THAT PATHETIC
LITTLE OBSOLETE DRIVE YOU KEEP WAVING AROUND.

I dont even bother to have drives that small in any system
anymore, ITS TOO SMALL TO BE USEFUL ANYMORE.

Even a recoverable failure is worse than NO failure.

Wrong when you avoid having the downtime involved
in the mindless swapping of a perfectly good drive just
because its older than some number you have plucked
from your silly little pig ignorant arse and you arent stupid
enough to still be using drives that small anymore.

Yep.

Then do tell Rod, do you pretend to know 15 minutes
ahead of time when a drive will die of old age so you
can replace it moments before that happens?

Dont need to know. THATS WHAT PROPER
BACKUPS ARE FOR, ****WIT CHILD.

If not, "disaster-recovery" is the scenario you face
when assuming you can run a drive for years longer.

Nope, no disaster what so ever, JUST yawning when
you replace a drive that has died AND LESS DOWNTIME
IS INVOLVED IN DOING THAT THAN YOU GUARANTEE
WHEN YOU ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO SWAP OUT A
DRIVE THAT IS WORKING FINE JUST BECAUSE ITS
PASSED SOME STUPID TIME THAT YOU HAVE
PLUCKED OUT OF YOUR STUPID ARSE.

Some drives will run years longer of course, and others won't.

The modern reality is that **** all drives actually die, they get
replaced because they arent big enough to bother with anymore.

So you either gamble

No gamble involved with proper backups, ****wit child.

or spend a paltry sum

Thats a lie too, that pathetic little drive you keep waving
around is too small to be any use here, ****wit child.

and reap a performance benefit too.

Wrong again, that obsolete drive you keep waving
around HAS A WORSE PERFORMANCE THAN
THE DRIVES I AM CURRENTLY USING.

Keep desperately digging child, you'll be out in china any time now, AGAIN.

 

[kony]

We'll see if you can ever manage to bullshit your way
out of your predicament, even just this once, gutless.

For quite a while now I had already realized there was no
point in trying to win an argument with you Rod, I merely
stated a few issues and you can go all day disagreeing if
you like and I still have no need to get out of any
so-called predicament. Nobody is compelled to agree with
either of us.

You're the fool so stupid that it cant even manage to work out
that MORE DOWNTIME IS INVOLVED IN SWAPPING OUT A
PERFECTLY GOOD HARD DRIVE JUST BECAUSE ITS OLDER
THAN SOME NUMBER YOU HAVE PLUCKED OUT OF YOUR
ARSE, INSTEAD OF JUST ENSURING THAT WHAT MATTERS
IS PROPERLY BACKED UP AND REPLACING THE DRIVE IN THE
UNLIKELY EVENT THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY DIE BEFORE IT
BECOMES TOO SMALL AND SLOW TO BOTHER WITH ANYMORE.

Actually Rod, downtime is only significant if it's when you
were trying, needing to use the system. Such would be the
case when you find that old drive dead (in your case), or by
my suggestion it is replaced when convenient, not a "drop
everything and do it this second", scenario.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Since you're stuck in endless loop mode again, I take that
as a confession that you have nothing more to add... so
we're done.

 

[Rod Speed]

For quite a while now I had already realized there was
no point in trying to win an argument with you Rod,

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

I merely stated a few issues and you can go all day disagreeing if you
like and I still have no need to get out of any so-called predicament.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Nobody is compelled to agree with either of us.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Actually Rod, downtime is only significant if it's
when you were trying, needing to use the system.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist ****wit children ?

Some of us have enough of a clue to have redundant hardware
so that whatever fails we can carry on regardless whatever
fails, and replace what has failed at our convenience.

You cant actually manage something as basic as that ?

YOUR problem, child.

Such would be the case when you find that old drive dead (in your case),

Wrong, as always.

or by my suggestion it is replaced when convenient,
not a "drop everything and do it this second", scenario.

Not stupid enough to ever get into that scenario, thanks child.

Since you're stuck in endless loop mode again, I take
that as a confession that you have nothing more to add...

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

so we're done.

Wrong, as always.

 

[Osiris]

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_Syndrome

Absolutely brilliant.
My compliments.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some stupid pseudokraut that cant even manage to get even the
simplest stuff like what mp3s are about right, desperately cowering
behind Osiris' wrote just the puerile shit that you'd expect from a
desperately cowering pseudokraut that cant even manage to get
even the simplest stuff like what mp3s are about to spew.

 

[Osiris]

Some stupid pseudokraut that cant even manage to get even the
simplest stuff like what mp3s are about right, desperately cowering
behind Osiris' wrote just the puerile shit that you'd expect from a
desperately cowering pseudokraut that cant even manage to get
even the simplest stuff like what mp3s are about to spew.

cut...
paste...
cut...
paste...
cut...
paste...

on the attic of his mind,
not much daylight ever shined...

 

[xModem]

cut...
paste...
cut...
paste...
cut...
paste...

on the attic of his mind,
not much daylight ever shined...

Better look behind you. Speedy thinks someone is cowering back there.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Since you're stuck in endless loop mode again, I take that
as a confession that you have nothing more to add... so
we're done.

It's all in the sig.

--

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT F :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==============================================================

fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2.
to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences
that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME
fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". - Hutchison

 

[Rod Speed]

Some stupid pseudokraut that cant even manage to get even the
simplest stuff like what mp3s are about right, desperately cowering
behind Osiris' wrote just the puerile shit that you'd expect from a
desperately cowering pseudokraut that cant even manage to get
even the simplest stuff like what mp3s are about to spew.