Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.

[Jack]

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