On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 15:08 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 08:40:47PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > Not really, it was just an SSD. Two of them were used as cache and they
> > failed
> > was not surprising. It's really unfortunate that SSDs fail particulary fast
> > when used for
hw writes:
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 21:26 +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
> hw writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 06:55:27PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 11:57 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 21:26 +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
> hw writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 06:55:27PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 11:57 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 05:34:32PM
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 08:40:47PM +0100, hw wrote:
Not really, it was just an SSD. Two of them were used as cache and they failed
was not surprising. It's really unfortunate that SSDs fail particulary fast
when used for purposes they can be particularly useful for.
If you buy hard drives
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 14:48 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:07AM +0100, hw wrote:
> > There was no misdiagnosis. Have you ever had a failed SSD? They usually
> > just
> > disappear.
>
> Actually, they don't; that's a somewhat unusual failure mode.
What else happens?
On Sat, 2022-11-12 at 07:27 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:22:19PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I think what hede was hinting at was that early SSDs had a (pretty)
> > limited number of write cycles [...]
>
> As was pointed out to me, the OP wasn't
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 17:05 +, Curt wrote:
> On 2022-11-11, wrote:
> >
> > I just contested that their failure rate is higher than that of HDDs.
> > This is something which was true in early days, but nowadays it seems
> > to be just a prejudice.
>
> If he prefers extrapolating his
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:22:19PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> I think what hede was hinting at was that early SSDs had a (pretty)
> limited number of write cycles [...]
As was pointed out to me, the OP wasn't hede. It was hw. Sorry for the
mis-attribution.
Cheers
--
t
hw writes:
On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 06:55:27PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 11:57 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 05:34:32PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > > > And mind you, SSDs are *designed to fail* the
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:05:33PM -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
300TB/year. That's a little bizarre: it's 9.51 MB/s. Modern
high end spinners also claim 200MB/s or more when feeding them
continuous writes. Apparently WD thinks that can't be sustained
more than 5% of the time.
Which makes sense for
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:07AM +0100, hw wrote:
There was no misdiagnosis. Have you ever had a failed SSD? They usually just
disappear.
Actually, they don't; that's a somewhat unusual failure mode. I have had
a couple of ssd failures, out of hundreds. (And I think mostly from a
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> I think what hede was hinting at was that early SSDs had a (pretty)
> limited number of write cycles per "block" [1] before failure; they had
> (and have) extra blocks to substitute broken ones and do a fair amount
> of "wear leveling behind the scenes. So it made
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:01 AM wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:07AM +0100, hw wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> >... Here's a report
> > by folks who do lots of HDDs and SDDs:
> >
> >
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:53:21PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:01 AM wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:07AM +0100, hw wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> >... Here's a report
> > by folks who do lots of HDDs and SDDs:
> >
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:01 AM wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:07AM +0100, hw wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
>... Here's a report
> by folks who do lots of HDDs and SDDs:
>
> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2021/
>
> The
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 05:05:51PM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2022-11-11, wrote:
> >
> > I just contested that their failure rate is higher than that of HDDs.
[...]
> If he prefers extrapolating his anecdotal personal experience to a
> general rule rather than applying a verifiable general rule to
On 2022-11-11, wrote:
>
> I just contested that their failure rate is higher than that of HDDs.
> This is something which was true in early days, but nowadays it seems
> to be just a prejudice.
If he prefers extrapolating his anecdotal personal experience to a
general rule rather than applying
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 09:12:36AM +0100, hw wrote:
> Backblaze does all kinds of things.
whatever.
> > The gist, for disks playing similar roles (they don't use yet SSDs for bulk
> > storage, because of the costs): 2/1518 failures for SSDs, 44/1669 for HDDs.
> >
> > I'll leave the maths as an
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 08:01 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:07AM +0100, hw wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Why would anyone use SSDs for backups? They're way too expensive for that.
>
> Possibly.
>
> > So far,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:07AM +0100, hw wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
[...]
> Why would anyone use SSDs for backups? They're way too expensive for that.
Possibly.
> So far, the failure rate with SSDs has been not any better than the failure
> rate
> of
On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 06:55:27PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 11:57 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 05:34:32PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > > > And mind you, SSDs are *designed to fail* the sooner the more
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 06:55:27PM +0100, hw wrote:
On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 11:57 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 05:34:32PM +0100, hw wrote:
> And mind you, SSDs are *designed to fail* the sooner the more data you write
> to
> them. They have their uses, maybe even for
On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 11:57 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 05:34:32PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > And mind you, SSDs are *designed to fail* the sooner the more data you write
> > to
> > them. They have their uses, maybe even for storage if you're so desperate,
> > but
> > not for
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 05:34:32PM +0100, hw wrote:
And mind you, SSDs are *designed to fail* the sooner the more data you write to
them. They have their uses, maybe even for storage if you're so desperate, but
not for backup storage.
It's unlikely you'll "wear out" your SSDs faster than you
On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 02:19 -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> On 11/10/22 00:37, David Christensen wrote:
> > On 11/9/22 00:24, hw wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 17:30 -0800, David Christensen wrote:
>
> [...]
> Which brings up another suggestion in two parts:
>
> 1: use amanda, with tar and
On 11/10/22 00:37, David Christensen wrote:
On 11/9/22 00:24, hw wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 17:30 -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> Hmm, when you can backup like 3.5TB with that, maybe I should put
FreeBSD on my
> server and give ZFS a try. Worst thing that can happen is that it
26 matches
Mail list logo
