1 |
2016-09-01 22:12 GMT+03:00 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>: |
2 |
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, gevisz <gevisz@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> 2016-09-01 14:55 GMT+03:00 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> 2. Set it up as an LVM partition. Unless you're using filesystems |
6 |
>>> like zfs/btrfs that have their own way of doing volume management, |
7 |
>>> this just makes things less painful down the road. |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> 3. I'd probably just set it up as one big logical volume, unless you |
10 |
>>> know you don't need all the space and you think you might use it for |
11 |
>>> something else later. You can change your mind on this with ext4+lvm |
12 |
>>> either way, but better to start out whichever way seems best. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> I had to refresh my memory about LVM before replying to you |
15 |
>> but still can not see why I may need LVM on an external |
16 |
>> hard drive... |
17 |
> |
18 |
> It just gives you more options in the future, |
19 |
|
20 |
Yes, thank you. |
21 |
|
22 |
> it is easy to move LVM volumes to other drives, re-partition them later, |
23 |
> and so on. |
24 |
|
25 |
I still suspect that this extra level of complexity can complicate recovery |
26 |
of the data, if anything happens to the disk under LVM management (except |
27 |
for stealing the hard drive, of course :). |
28 |
|
29 |
> I agree it is probably overkill on a removable device, but it doesn't hurt. |
30 |
> This is a 5TB drive after all. But, I don't think it is super-critical either. |
31 |
> |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>>> It will take you all of 30 seconds to format this, unless you're |
34 |
>>> running badblocks (which almost nobody does, because... |
35 |
>> |
36 |
>> it takes too much time? |
37 |
>> |
38 |
>> I currently running a smart test on it, and it promised to take |
39 |
>> 10 hours to complete... |
40 |
> |
41 |
> That's basically it. If it didn't take time people would of course |
42 |
> run it first. I think a SMART test would be about as good and likely |
43 |
> a lot faster. However, the drive should be managing bad blocks on its |
44 |
> own (granted, many drives seem to get that wrong in my experience, |
45 |
> which is part of why I run btrfs, but I probably wouldn't use |
46 |
> btrfs/zfs for a drive you're moving all over the place since who knows |
47 |
> what kind of kernel you'll have when you use it and heaven help you if |
48 |
> you ever need to read it on Windows). |
49 |
|
50 |
It is not a question of using the disk with Windows, but I too often see |
51 |
some reports about problems in using btrfs on this list to try using it |
52 |
myself... |
53 |
|
54 |
>>> You seem to be concerned about losing data. You should be. This is a |
55 |
>>> physical storage device. You WILL lose everything stored on it at |
56 |
>>> some point in time. |
57 |
>> |
58 |
>> Last time, I have managed to restore all the data from my 2.5" hard |
59 |
>> drive that suddenly died about 7 years ago and hope to do it again |
60 |
>> if any. :) |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Well, if the data is redundant then you're fine (it is essentially |
63 |
> already backed up). |
64 |
|
65 |
No, that data was not backed up. |
66 |
|
67 |
But I am not guaranteed to be so lucky again, of course. :( |
68 |
|
69 |
That is why I decided to finally start to back up my data. :) |
70 |
|
71 |
> But, you should check those backups from time to time. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> You should never rely on the ability to recover data from a hard |
74 |
> drive. For starters, if you just lose the thing (portable things can |
75 |
> sometimes grow legs; you're talking about 5 libraries of congress in a |
76 |
> bag that could get stolen) or it is catastrophically destroyed that |
77 |
> isn't going to work. Short of that there is a fair chance you can get |
78 |
> a lot of data off the drive, and it is fairly likely if you're using |
79 |
> some kind of expensive recovery service, but you can't promise that |
80 |
> the specific file you care about most will get recovered. |
81 |
> |
82 |
> Backups are annoying. |
83 |
|
84 |
Yes. :) |
85 |
|
86 |
> I don't do them as well as ideally I should |
87 |
|
88 |
Who does? :) |
89 |
|
90 |
Well, probably, one who just lost a lot of data because of not doing backup. :) |
91 |
|
92 |
> (way too much data to get it all offsite), but I make a conscious |
93 |
> decision about what does/doesn't get backed up and how. I |
94 |
> occasionally restore my encrypted cloud backups to confirm they |
95 |
> contain what I expect them to. I actually get the log summary emailed |
96 |
> daily to make sure it is running (if I had more hosts I could use some |
97 |
> kind of monitoring for that...). I've never needed to use the online |
98 |
> cloud backups, but they're there for a reason and they cover anything |
99 |
> I actually care about (documents and such). I also backup all my |
100 |
> cloud services (evernote, google drive, etc) to local storage |
101 |
> occassionally; that doesn't require further backup since it is the |
102 |
> backup. You just need two copies of everything, with one copy |
103 |
> preferably being inaccessible from the other and not at the same |
104 |
> physical site. |
105 |
|
106 |
Well, thank you for your advices. |