@DragonLord I have the 128 GB model already at work, but my use of it severely handicaps its speed
for one, it's on a Nehalem i5 laptop with 2 GB of RAM. second, it's connected via eSATA 3 Gb/s. third, it's mainly used as a ReadyBoost drive and a pagefile for the low RAM.
the system is definitely faster with it than without it, but it doesn't fly -- the bad processor and very low RAM make the system very slow, and even a good SSD is much slower than low-end DDR3.
Off topic, but on my mind right now: I'm a Pentax photographer and the Pentax community have been waiting for years for a full-frame 24x36mm DSLR. It's finally been announced.
The prophecy is fulfilled: #PENTAX announces full-frame DSLR! http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/about/press/348/RICOH_IMAGING_to_Exhibit_a_DSLR_Camera_Under_Development_at_CP+_February_12-15
for my ssd on my desktop at home, i'm probably going to forego using IRST, and just put things i really need to load fast, on the SSD... like games i play... maybe even symlink in my chrome profile
I never thought of this, but as suggested by Journeyman Geek, a hard case is the answer.
The Pelican 1040, at 6.5" x 3.87" x 1.75" inside (LWD), seems to be just the right fit for the larger gaming mice I use (but may be a bit tight; some very large mice, such as the ROCCAT Tyon with its protrud...
XD. Work does the wierdest stuff sometimes. I partially took apart a GPU HSF assembly cause the fan wasn't spinning. And no one seems to know where the screwdrivers are,
They got bought over by WD, but are kind of their 'enterprise/skunk works' brand
They're basically the most reliable consumer drives you can buy, but kinda hard to buy. My usual, slightly less disreputable than usual small computer store used to stock em
I've been giving toshiba a try as well, but they mostly do laptop drives, and they don't have the same track record HGST has
Last I looked, same-for-same HGST and Seagate "NAS" drives were right about the same price, but the HGSTs are at least purported to be significantly more reliable. I've never used Seagate's "NAS" drives, but went with HGST's offerings for my most recent order.
I have used Seagate enterprise drives though (currently on NM series) and those seem quite decent. Haven't had the HGSTs for long enough to really be able to comment on whether they are better, worse, or the same. The price is significantly lower though (to the tune of about half).
I've had failures too. Or, well, "failures". The drives being retired before outright failure. The most recent one lasted maybe a month or two less than its five years warranty before it started throwing errors back at me in any sort of regular fashion.
The ones over at our client only threw errors as well and were quickly replaced. The failure we had on-site was a 2-disk failure in a RAID1+HS, leaving us with a single disk that could fail any moment
My experience is largely the opposite, actually. For me, it's WDs that have been the troublemakers. Everyone who has tried seems to be happy with HGST though so I decided to give them a try.
I like the approach that I saw someone mention: calculate cost per amount of storage per warranty-year. As in, you "rent" the drive for the duration of the warranty period.
Just keep in mind that with only two drives in RAID-1, you have no protection in case the second drive develops any sort of problem in a reduced-redundancy situation. Probably not a real issue given that you have a backup as well, but worth keeping in mind.
51 reallocated sectors, not making a dent in the "value"? I wouldn't worry until "value" starts showing a difference. :-) That's what spare sectors are for, after all.
@Bob I have a eSATA dock at home and two bare drives, and switch their places with some regularity. The backup drive that is at home gets refreshed once per day. I used to run normal external USB drives, but the USB controller on my computer's motherboard seems to be doing "something" iffy. eSATA has less potential for problems.
If that causes the number of pending or reallocated sectors to grow, then start considering ordering a replacement.
@Bob I have a dataset that is approaching 2.5 TB or so. The daily full refresh (if I haven't added a lot of data) takes about 20-25 minutes, as it mostly just churns through metadata to make sure that files haven't been changed. Regular storage scrubs ensure that the data doesn't change on-disk without it being recorded in the file system.
All automated, of course. My experience is definitely that backups that aren't automated just don't happen, or they don't happen anywhere near as often as needed. Cue SuperUser data-recovery tag.
Incremental copying of changes, but keeps a full set so if I need something the version from the time of the most recent backup is always in the most recent backup. For history I go to earlier stored copies.
> Using rsync and hard links, it is possible to keep multiple, full backups instantly available. The disk space required is just a little more than the space of one full backup, plus incrementals.
I use hardlinks extensively, and it handles those fine (on Linux, though). Extended attributes (basically ADSes) also get copied just fine; I just checked.
Don't know for a fact about ACLs but I am fairly certain rsync has the capability to handle those too.
The only part of my system that isn't ZFS is the root partition, because Linux/GRUB/ZFS-boot/root is a nontrivial setup, and I'm already holding my breath with every kernel upgrade. Root is ext4.
@Bob I think NT 4.0 supported 6-7 different CPU architectures, actually. The point is that unlike more or less every other x86 OS, NT was not originally developed on and for the x86.
@Bob the BT ones aren't though, and those are the ones I ordered
they're "backordered" by the vendor I ordered them from
they're backordered everywhere
@Bob good thing 95% of all Windows programs are either open source or have active devs willing to recompile them if you put a ticket in their customer support, right? :)
use anchors to specify that you only want to match that expression and nothing extraneous (this will eliminate partial matches), like so:
^accept(?!reject)$ will (depending on the behavior of the anchors, whether they delimit on newline or the end of the string) match only the text accept in the entire string (or line)... in this simple case actually the ZLA is unnecessary
or if there's other junk in front of accept that you're OK with ignoring, but you don't want anything afteraccept, you can omit the starting anchor: accept(?!reject)$
...actually the ZLA is still not needed there
accept$ will match accept, blahaccept, there is a such thing as an accept, but not match acceptr, accepted, acceptreject, etc.
