nap...@squareownz.org wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:58:47PM -0500, Dale wrote: >> Mark Knecht wrote: >>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> <SNIP> >>>>> My thoughts these days is that nobody really makes a bad drive anymore. >>>>> Like cars[1], they're all good and do what it says on the box. Same >>>>> with bikes[2]. >>>>> >>>>> A manufacturer may have some bad luck and a product range is less than >>>>> perfect, but even that is quite rare and most stuff ups can be fixed >>>>> with new firmware. So it's all good. >>>> >>>> >>>> That's my thoughts too. It doesn't matter what brand you go with, they >>>> all have some sort of failure at some point. They are not built to last >>>> forever and there is always the random failure, even when a week old. >>>> It's usually the loss of important data and not having a backup that >>>> makes it sooooo bad. I'm not real picky on brand as long as it is a >>>> company I have heard of. >>>> >>> >>> One thing to keep in mind is statistics. For a single drive by itself >>> it hardly matters anymore what you buy. You cannot predict the >>> failure. However if you buy multiple identical drives at the same time >>> then most likely you will either get all good drives or (possibly) a >>> bunch of drives that suffer from similar defects and all start failing >>> at the same point in their life cycle. For RAID arrays it's >>> measurably best to buy drives that come from different manufacturing >>> lots, better from different factories, and maybe even from different >>> companies. Then, if a drive fails, assuming the failure is really the >>> fault of the drive and not some local issue like power sources or ESD >>> events, etc., it's less likely other drives in the box will fail at >>> the same time. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mark >>> >>> >> >> >> >> You make a good point too. I had a headlight to go out on my car once >> long ago. I, not thinking, replaced them both since the new ones were >> brighter. Guess what, when one of the bulbs blew out, the other was out >> VERY soon after. Now, I replace them but NOT at the same time. Keep in >> mind, just like a hard drive, when one headlight is on, so is the other >> one. When we turn our computers on, all the drives spin up together so >> they are basically all getting the same wear and tear effect. >> >> I don't use RAID, except to kill bugs, but that is good advice. People >> who do use RAID would be wise to use it. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) >> > > hum hum! > I know that Windows does this by default (it annoys me so I disable it) > but does linux disable or stop running the disks if they're inactive? > I'm assuming there's an option somewhere - maybe just `unmount`! >
The default is to keep them all running and to not spin them down. I have never had a Linux OS to spin down a drive unless I set/told it to. You can do this tho. The command and option is: hdparm -S /dev/sdX X would be the drive number. There is also the -s option but it is not recommended. There is also the -y and -Y options. Before using ANY of these, read the man page. Each one has it uses and you need to know for sure which one does what you want. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
