Stack Exchange
log in

gronostaj

 Discussion on question by Szczepan Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Apr 12, 2023 15:09
Sounds like you need an access point, not a router
 

 Discussion on question by Saki Osive:…

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Mar 8, 2023 16:16
The cable may be of poor quality. I've seen one that was allegedly Cat 5E but the pairs weren't even twisted together. Even when cut down to 15 cm length (6") it couldn't do 1 Gbps reliably.
 

 Discussion on question by Turi: Is it…

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Oct 2, 2022 10:02
@r2d3 It's the vulnerability I've linked to above. According to the author it doesn't weaken the encryption significantly.
gronostaj
Oct 2, 2022 10:02
Actually there was a weak encryption bug in 7-Zip that was fixed in 2019, but according to the author it's not serious enough to compromise security.
 

 Discussion on question by m3nda: How …

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Aug 1, 2022 12:15
I've been using Firefox on Windows since version 1.5 and on Linux for a couple years now, and I also can't think of any red flash. Maybe it's something due to your customizations? Are you using a custom theme or extensions?
 

 Discussion between ExtremeMultiman an…

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Jun 7, 2021 14:39
I 100% agree that technically speaking, firmware is software. I'm just saying that in case of the "software RAID/hardware RAID" discussion it's not a useful argument to make, because it introduces unnecessary ambiguity while not helping with anything. Let me phrase it like this.

Let's forget about fake RAID for a while and discuss just hardware and software RAID.
When you're saying that an LSI RAID card is hardware RAID, you're glancing over the fact that there's some firmware (or in general: software) running on that card. I think we both agree that it's completely fine to ignore this det…
gronostaj
Jun 7, 2021 13:33
Regarding answer edits: an edit shouldn't deviate from author's original intent. Actually it's one of canned rejection reasons in the edits moderation queue. Frankly, I'm not sure if your answer adds any value besides what was already posted by others, but in such cases I tend to hold my downvote and express my doubts in the comments. This lets the author clarify stuff and potentially salvage the answer.
gronostaj
Jun 7, 2021 13:27
I was looking at the Ubuntu community link.

> Software is not necessarily on operative system like an application ora a driver, a firmware is also a software program.

I see where you're going with this, but I don't think it's a useful argument to make. The term "firmware" was coined to distinguish embedded device-specific software from non-embedded generic software. I think using the term "firmware" for the former and "software" for the latter is more convenient than spelling it out every time. That's also the meaning of "software" in "software RAID". Otherwise one could argue that surely…
gronostaj
Jun 7, 2021 12:08
The article you've linked makes a clear distinction between software RAID and "fake" RAID and describes them in line with my definitions: "fake RAID" is described as "hardware products" (literally the first sentence) that offer RAID-like features but require software drivers. The 2nd paragraph discusses differences between Linux software RAID and "fake" RAID and use cases for both. So my remark still stands: "Software Raid, also commonly referred as FakeRaid" is incorrect.
gronostaj
Jun 7, 2021 12:08
That's your words: "Software Raid, also commonly referred as FakeRaid, is not a real RAID system". If you think it's not accurate please consider correcting it. Regarding "fake" vs. software RAID, I've never seen these terms used interchangeably. Software RAID = OS level, hardware RAID = dedicated hardware, "fake" RAID = chipset level. Also see the discussion under fraxinus's answer.
gronostaj
Jun 7, 2021 12:08
1. The question clearly states that "The disks are advertised as 1 TB and the real size of the disks are 931.5 GB". So the 931 GB number already accounts for the base-1000-vs-1024 calculation. 2. Software RAID and "fake" RAID are not the same thing. 3. Why do you think software RAID and "fake" RAID are not "real"? How are they less "real" than hardware RAID? Btw, your problem #1 applies to hardware RAID as well.
 

 Discussion on question by Alexandru C…

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Jun 1, 2021 07:28
Related: Could this well known software be a spyware?
 

 Discussion on answer by ChanganAuto: …

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Apr 22, 2021 10:41
@Softunes UEFI has been the default for 10 or so years now. You either have an old computer that still uses BIOS or your UEFI emulates BIOS compatibility and Windows is installed as if it was a BIOS machine.
 

 Discussion on answer by Peter - Reins…

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Apr 15, 2021 12:11
@Peter-ReinstateMonica That's not really user-friendly and intuitive
 

 Discussion between gronostaj and Antonio

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 07:01
If you decide to go with a large internal backup disk (which I don't recommend) I'd use APFS for the entire drive. It's native for your platform and avoids the need to split the drive into fixed-size partitions. For an external drive I'd choose exFAT. It doesn't have the limitations of FAT32 and unnecessary overhead of NTFS.
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 06:59
Don't rely on easy file recovery for your important data. It's expensive and good results are not guaranteed. It should only be considered as a last resort, when all else fails. If you need protection against filesystem corruption, have a secondary backup.
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 06:55
Ideally, you should have a 2nd copy of all backups in a secondary location (friend's house etc.). That gives you resiliency against a house fire that would destroy both the laptop and the original backup drive. It's also a secondary copy in case of hardware/filesystem failure on the primary one. Decide yourself if your data is really so irreplaceable that you need a secondary. Cloud is also a good candidate for that one.
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 06:52
Backup should be stored on an external medium. A USB HDD is a good starting point. If you don't want to connect some cables every now and then to update the backup, consider buying a NAS unit. It's basically a small, always-on storage server that you connect to over the local network.
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 06:49
I think your backup plan is not ideal. I wouldn't consider 2nd internal drive a proper backup. What if you lose your laptop or it's stolen? Both your data and the backup are gone. What if the power delivery section on the motherboard fails and fries both disks? Etc. etc.
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 06:47
If you want to run VMs off that disk, I'd go for an SSD if your budget allows for it. It will make a difference.
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 06:46
What kind of storage? Large files, like movies or ISOs? Many tiny files? VM disks? How are you going to use these files? Why do you want to use FAT32 or NTFS if you don't need portability?
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 06:46
Are you using macOS, Windows or Linux? What are you going to use it for (more specifically than "storage")?
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 06:46
Is it actually? Usually it's the other way around: main bay is SATA3 and ODD bay is SATA2 because optical disks are way, way slower. I doubt Apple would use an unnecessarily fast link for ODD and a slower one for main bay.
gronostaj
Mar 2, 2021 06:46
Why do you want to do it this way, rather than simply install the new HDD in the optical disk drive caddy and leave the SSD where it is?
 

 Discussion between gronostaj and midnite

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Oct 9, 2020 11:18
I think Albin is referring to the common "RAID is not a backup" adage. If you just want to keep your data safe, backups are enough and you don't need RAID. The advantage of RAID over just backup is its availability when the array is degraded. Restoring from backups implies downtime, rebuilding RAID doesn't. So if you don't need availability and downtime is acceptable for you, then maybe you don't need RAID.
gronostaj
Oct 9, 2020 11:15
@midnite By DAS I mean something like this: https://www.drobo.com/storage-products/5C/
It's not just a fancy USB hub with disk shelves. It manages RAID by itself and is exposed to the host as a single storage device.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 18:24
@midnite One more question you've asked but I didn't answer it earlier: the difference between a single-USB DAS and your multiple USB-connected drives is that DAS is autonomous to some extent. Accidental disconnection may interrupt transfers - something any competent filesystem should handle gracefully - but won't affect array integrity.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 18:22
@Albin I've only seen anecdotal evidence so far I think
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 13:12
Can you share what's your goal with this project? I've been dabbling with this topic for the last few months, maybe I can suggest something.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 13:08
USB is good enough only if you want to use these disks as individual drives or have them virtually pooled with something like mergerfs. For anything that operates in an array you need a reliable, permanent connection. For this number of drives you'll very likely run out of SATA ports and you'll need a HBA card or a RAID controller configured to work in passthrough mode.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 13:05
Also, you're not saving disk's lifespan by disconnecting it, quite the opposite. HDDs don't mind spinning 24/7, but failure rates are significantly higher when disks are spinning up. For maximum reliability you should keep them connected all the time. Spin-down is only useful for power saving.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 13:03
With RAID1 it's the same deal: once a disk drops, it will have to be rebuilt once its back and this process can take hours or days, depending on disk size and performance. If it drops again during the rebuild, it will start over. If the other disk drops, your array crashes, you have to recreate it and restore data from backups. USB is just not suitable for RAID.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 11:10
The problem with USB, eSATA, loosely dangling SATA etc. is that its connections are unreliable and you may be triggering unnecessary rebuilds. Also in these conditions you can exceed the redundancy limit and lose the array.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 11:09
If that's your goal, then you need reliable disk connections. Once any disk drops from the array, you can't simply reconnect it and carry on because the array could have changed in the meantime. This means that each disconnected drive is treated as a completely new drive and rebuilt (= merged into array to replace the previous one). It's a long process that stresses other disks in the array too.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 11:07
Usually the goal of building a multi-bay NAS or a DAS is to have it manage the disks as a single large volume with redundancy. So eg. 6 out of your 8 disks offer usable space and 2 disks store parity data. If any disks dies, you can swap it for a new one while NAS is continuously available and operating uninterrupted. Such redundant array can survive loss of up to the number of parity drives (including failure of non-parity drives).
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 11:02
Also: you're not going to be swapping these disks daily. Unless you'll be running >8 disks, this 1 or 2 occasions a year when a disk fails and you have to dive under the desk shouldn't be that much of a hassle. If you need something that will fit a full-sized motherboard, Fractal Define 7 seems to be quite popular since it can fit 14 (!) 3.5" disks.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 11:02
USB is not a great idea, see What would happen when USB devices draw more power than the hub can provide?.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 11:02
If you're building a NAS, consider a multi-bay NAS-centric case or used server-grade disk shelves. You need reliability and loosely hanging cables are not reliable.
gronostaj
Oct 8, 2020 11:02
At this scale the right answer would probably be to use a NAS or at least a DAS rather than connect disks directly.
 

 Discussion on answer by nick012000: H…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
gronostaj
Jul 25, 2020 19:27
By the way, if you have this kind of hypothetical virus, why would you bother with paying the ransom - which the question implies?
gronostaj
Jul 25, 2020 19:27
Please take time to understand Philipp's comment about macros. It applies to SQL, noSQL, CSV and almost all formats you can come up with.
 

 Discussion on question by joehua: Whe…

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Jun 15, 2020 17:21
What do you mean by "boot image"?
gronostaj
Jun 15, 2020 17:21
If you insist on using a single-layer DVD, Windows 10 version 1703 (3 years old) is 3.5 GB.
 

 Discussion on answer by Darrell Root:…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
gronostaj
Jan 12, 2020 12:56
Again, in other words: This kind of attack cannot be carried out by a random person on the Internet. It requires access to a very specific infrastructure. It will leave traces, make some people angry and will have consequences for reputation of whoever lets this happen. At least 256 IPs would be affected. Very likely the security loophole that would let this happen would be patched after such incident. All in all, it's non-trivial and very risky, so 99,99999% of Internet users don't have to worry about it.
 

 Discussion on answer by Guntram Blohm…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
gronostaj
Nov 29, 2018 10:14
I believe you misunderstood the hard drive Linux hack thing. The drive itself didn't run Linux. It was modified to alter /etc/hosts of a Linux installation stored on it and add an extra root account. So if the computer was running Linux, hard drive added a backdoor account and allowed root access for attackers.
 

 Discussion on question by Zvi Twersky…

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Apr 24, 2018 19:06
How come when "I" download from somewhere, my ISP allows ME to download at my download speed and doesn't say "sorry, you can't download at your fast download speed because that server you are trying to download from - his ISP is limiting the data transfer to their upload speed." - You're wrong here. That's exactly what would happen if the server can't upload with your download speed: your connection would be throttled. It's because you can't receive data that wasn't sent yet. And downloader's ISP isn't involved at all in this scenario.
gronostaj
Apr 24, 2018 19:06
@ZviTwersky Each connection has two ends: transmitting side and receiving side. You can't receive data faster than the other end is transmitting. If you're paying for 20 Mbps download bandwidth, it means that your total download bandwidth is limited to 20 Mpbs. It doesn't guarantee that every single node on the Internet will transmit with at least that speed.
 

 Discussion on question by cukier9a7b5…

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
May 26, 2017 08:50
Actually, hard disks are slightly more likely to fail just after buying than a bit later (see bathtub curve and this Backblaze blog post).
gronostaj
May 26, 2017 08:50
What are your beliefs based on?
 

 Discussion between gronostaj and Mark

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
gronostaj
Aug 23, 2016 07:56
It's probably related to the fact that you're booting Windows 7 winload.efi with Windows 10 boot manager. Usually it works - newer boot managers recognize signatures of older Windows versions. I don't know why it's not the case here. You could try to copy winload.efi from Windows 10 to Windows 7, but make backup of the old one - transplants don't always go as planned. Yes, old computer booting with BIOS may have something to do with this.