Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 04:14:33PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Gary Kline wrote:
> > Some things to consider (besides powering -down or -off drives)
> > are battery backup system. Don't most UPS systems isolate your
> > servers from the wall-socket?
>
> The better grade of UPSes do exactly that-- they provide "galvanic
> isolation" by using an isolation transformer which has the primary
> and secondary windings completely separated, and ensuring in the
> design that you don't connect the service neutral line to the output
> or load's neutral line. The load can thus either be floating or tied
> to the local building ground. This type of design is known as
> "double-conversion" because they always feed the input AC line
> through the rectifier & DC inverter, using more power but providing
> better PFC and can provide the load with an AC frequency which is
> different than the input AC frequency (ie, they can provide 60Hz
> output from 50Hz input, or vice versa).
Years ago I spent a lot of money for a top notch surge
protector. It still protects everything to this day; and very
well. Now and then I'll find my LAN down, DNS too, obviously,
because of a surge of one sort or another. The power here
(Seattle) is pretty good -- well, except for wind storms {koff}.
But I'm way past due for having the sort of higher quality
UPS that you're taking about. It would be wired to a pipe struck
in the earth. Floating_ground just doesn't cut it. Any models
you'd recommend? How much system installation is required?
I'm CAT-5A cabled. Software, no problem; anything else is.
>
> Cheaper UPSes, which include almost all consumer-grade models from
> APC, Tripplite, etc run in "line interactive mode", which involves a
> self-tapping or ferro-resonant transformer, can adjust the voltage up
> or down within limits, but they do not perform PFC and cannot provide
> frequency conversion, and they pass the neutral line from AC line to
> load without isolation, thus passing common-mode noise through. This
> design is lighter and requires fewer components (an isolation
> transformer is heavier), and does not keep the DC section and
> inverter always under full load, so are somewhat more efficient, but
> cannot deal with frequency drift or significant voltage changes.
Understand, thanks, Chuck. Here (where rubber-meets-pavement
is where *not* to cheap out).
>
> > At what level do hard drives have identical circuitry so that
> >they can be software lower-voltaged?
>
> The boards within a drive family might be identical (WD200BB/WD400BB/
> WD800BB/etc), but they don't deal with under-voltages at all well--
{{ this is what i was afraid of }}
> you'll either pull excessive current through the servo and spindle
> motor windings, or perhaps the drive will fail to spin up entirely.
> The spindle motors are designed to spin at the calibrated speed and
So, pragmatically, a drive is either going full-throttle or
it's OFF. ...Hm.
> won't spin at slower speeds.
Somewhere, prhaps at the Gnome shutdown GUI (dialogue?)
it reads: Off, Changed-user, Idle, Power-Off, Reboot,
or whatever. Flame from Gnome/KDE folks to /dev/null, please.
I'm guessing the "Idle" is for the laptops. YEs/no?
Something else to consider here is how much power do the newer
40-60, 200-300GB drives suck up? I don't think the drain is
much compared to, say, 3 CRT television sets drowning on
several hours/day. Still, let's SWAG that there are 25-30
million of us nerd/geek types running at least one computer.
That adds up.
>
> > *Except for consumer __cost__*, why don't all boxes have builtin
> > batteries like laptop? ...There are lots of things to consider.
>
> Cost is the primary reason why boxes don't have built-in batteries.
> People flinch away from paying for real RAID systems which include
> battery-backup for the drives...
Well, then I'm definitively part of the problem; suspect that
most of my kinsfolk are too. aNy idea how mmuch of this could be
solved by software? Maybe when a machine turns itself off at
03:30, it write a state-file. When it reboots {either by magic
timer or by actually crawling around down there and toggling
switches }, presto, you have everything just the way you left it.
puts("Feedback, world?");
gary
>
> --
> -Chuck
>
--
Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Apr 11, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Gary Kline wrote: Some things to consider (besides powering -down or -off drives) are battery backup system. Don't most UPS systems isolate your servers from the wall-socket? The better grade of UPSes do exactly that-- they provide "galvanic isolation" by using an isolation transformer which has the primary and secondary windings completely separated, and ensuring in the design that you don't connect the service neutral line to the output or load's neutral line. The load can thus either be floating or tied to the local building ground. This type of design is known as "double-conversion" because they always feed the input AC line through the rectifier & DC inverter, using more power but providing better PFC and can provide the load with an AC frequency which is different than the input AC frequency (ie, they can provide 60Hz output from 50Hz input, or vice versa). Cheaper UPSes, which include almost all consumer-grade models from APC, Tripplite, etc run in "line interactive mode", which involves a self-tapping or ferro-resonant transformer, can adjust the voltage up or down within limits, but they do not perform PFC and cannot provide frequency conversion, and they pass the neutral line from AC line to load without isolation, thus passing common-mode noise through. This design is lighter and requires fewer components (an isolation transformer is heavier), and does not keep the DC section and inverter always under full load, so are somewhat more efficient, but cannot deal with frequency drift or significant voltage changes. At what level do hard drives have identical circuitry so that they can be software lower-voltaged? The boards within a drive family might be identical (WD200BB/WD400BB/ WD800BB/etc), but they don't deal with under-voltages at all well-- you'll either pull excessive current through the servo and spindle motor windings, or perhaps the drive will fail to spin up entirely. The spindle motors are designed to spin at the calibrated speed and won't spin at slower speeds. *Except for consumer __cost__*, why don't all boxes have builtin batteries like latop? ...There are lots of things to consider. Cost is the primary reason why boxes don't have built-in batteries. People flinch away from paying for real RAID systems which include battery-backup for the drives... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:16:26PM -0700, Steve Franks wrote: > Say, I've been meaning to install ataidle for awhile, as my server handles > approximately 3-5 requests for cvs per 24 hours, and I'm a pragmatic > believer in the dangers of global warming, and I've never had a disk go bad > on my old w2k systems, even though they spun up/down at least 20-50 times a > day (on my desktop). > > It's non-obivous, however, from the docs/man wether ataide makes persistent > changes, or if you need to run it from cron, rc, etc. Anyone know the > 'proper' usage for ataidle? > > I found this: http://andreas.syndrom23.de/drupal/files/ataidle which might > be of general interest to folks along these same lines. No idea if it's > correct usage, however. Yuri Grebenkin's commments up-queue were well put. My newest 2800 AMD runs Ubuntu mostly for things-fun. Tho it has evolution so I can just click-on a mail-embedded URL and have firefox come alive very easily. No mouse swipe and messing with broswer in my default mutt. (&c.) Not *quite* like running a server just to have vi or another editor handy, but close. The Ubuntu runs my DVD/CD burner too. ---But it's still what I consider a "toy." Every situation is unique, I think. Are you admin'ing a slew of server? are you running a few to several for a small business? Or just running two machines for your own fun and profit? Some things to consider (besides powering -down or -off drives) are battery backup system. Don't most UPS systems isolate your servers from the wall-socket? At what level do hard drives have identical circuitry so that they can be software lower-voltaged? *Except for consumer __cost__*, why don't all boxes have builtin batteries like latop? ...There are lots of things to consider. gary > > Thanks, > Steve > > On 4/9/07, Pieter de Goeje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >On Sunday 08 April 2007, Garrett Cooper wrote: > >> Hello again all, > >> I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed > >means to > >> spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by chance. > >> Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' > >lives :). > >> TIA, > >> -Garrett > >Take a look at ataidle (sysutils/ataidle). Dunno if it helps with their > >life > >expectancy, but it certainly is quieter without the disks spinning :). > > > >HTH, > >Pieter de Goeje > >___ > >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > > > -- > Steve Franks, KE7BTE > Staff Engineer > La Palma Devices, LLC > http://www.lapalmadevices.com > (520) 312-0089 > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Proper list server? (was Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?)
Thanks, Jeff and others.
Ok, I'll use "Reply to All". FYI, I only use this Yahoo account for situations
where I don't want to get spammed to death. I started using UNIX, email and the
Internet in 1989, but for the last 15 years I've been stuck with Windows (not
counting hosted Web servers) -- guess I'm getting a little "soft".
I'm having a hard time trying to implement a non-Microsoft OS for the first
time in (literally) decades, and freely admit my ignorance. My prior
experiences installing UNIX were with commercial versions (mainly AIX) using
checklists prepared by folks who knew what to install.
I live in the heart of Microsoft territory. No offense to Microsoft, but I'd
like to see a little more competition around here. What I'm seeing is a trend
towards Microsoft servers (even Web servers!). Other than (hosted) Web servers
running FreeBSD/Apache, I work mainly with workstations. I'd like to gain some
modest expertise in the non-Microsoft server arena.
I appreciate any and all help in this endeavor.
Jeffrey Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 11, 2007, at 2:14 PM, L
Goodwin wrote:
> Well, Jonathan, since you asked, here are the things I've found
> cumbersome about freebsd-questions, some/all of which may be due to
> my own ignorance:
It's not so much your ignorance (well ultimately it is), but that you
are using a webmail system (Yahoo!) to manage your mail.
Quite simply, if you are going to be getting lots of mail (as happens
when you subscribe to a mailing list or two) and communicating with
people on discussion lists, you should use a proper mail client.
I'm sure that there will be ways to doing the things you want with
Yahoo!, but on the whole mailing lists were designed to work with
real email clients.
Anyway, here are comments on the original.
>
> 1) I get all email posted to freebsd-questions in my inbox
> (actually, some end up in "bulk mail" folder). That's a lot of mail
> to wade through. I'm trying to get a system up and running so I can
> move on to the next task.
> I suppose I could set up some email filtering rules to limit what
> comes in.
Sorting of incoming mail is essential if you belong to several
mailing lists. I'm sure that Yahoo will have some way of doing this
so that mail that matches a particular pattern will go into a
designated mail folder. As others have pointed out, the best pattern
to use is based on the List-Id header, which for this lists looks like
List-Id: User questions
I have a sorting rule that puts all of my freebsd.org lists (I
subscribe to several) in a specific folder. Because I'm sorting mail
with something called sieve (almost certainly not what Yahoo is
doing) my rule looks like
elsif header :contains ["List-Id"] "freebsd.org" {
fileinto "INBOX.LISTS.Comp.BSD"; stop;
}
But don't worry, you won't have to edit such rules by hand. Yahoo
will have a nice web interface for you.
> 2) To reply to an email, I have to copy/paste "freebsd-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]" into the "To" field. If I forget to do this,
> my reply gets send to the sender only.
> See? I almost forgot to do it for this reply. :-}
Most mailers (and I assume Yahoo! as well) make a distinction between
"Reply" and "Reply to all". It might be called something else on
Yahoo! but look for something that seems to mean the same thing.
For some discussion lists, things are configured so that the Reply-To
header in mail to the list will make a simple "Reply" to go just to
the list. There are fierce debates among list managers about whether
that is a good thing or a force for evil. I will not step into it
here, except to note that the people who configured this discussion
list made a conscious and informed choice about how to configure the
list. (Mailman allows lists to be set up either way.)
> One feature I like about (some) list servers is the ability to send
> a private message to another member. This comes in handy when one
> person is helping troubleshoot a problem, and you don't need
> everybody on the list to get involved.
That is what a simple "Reply" will do given how this list is set up.
Use Reply to All to send the response to the list as well.
I don't mean to present an argument from authority, but you are
clearly new to email discussion lists. The people who made the
choices about the configuration of this list have much more
experience about what works and what doesn't work. I managed my
first email list in 1986, and over the decades have formed some very
strong opinions. It's good for you to query things and point out
stuff that doesn't seem to work right. It wouldn't be the first time
that the experts are wrong. But do keep in mind that most everything
you encounter has been configured or designed the way it is for a
reason. And so when you run into something that seems strange or
annoying to you, the question to ask is not "why can't we do it
righ
Re: Proper list server? (was Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?)
On Apr 11, 2007, at 2:14 PM, L Goodwin wrote:
Well, Jonathan, since you asked, here are the things I've found
cumbersome about freebsd-questions, some/all of which may be due to
my own ignorance:
It's not so much your ignorance (well ultimately it is), but that you
are using a webmail system (Yahoo!) to manage your mail.
Quite simply, if you are going to be getting lots of mail (as happens
when you subscribe to a mailing list or two) and communicating with
people on discussion lists, you should use a proper mail client.
I'm sure that there will be ways to doing the things you want with
Yahoo!, but on the whole mailing lists were designed to work with
real email clients.
Anyway, here are comments on the original.
1) I get all email posted to freebsd-questions in my inbox
(actually, some end up in "bulk mail" folder). That's a lot of mail
to wade through. I'm trying to get a system up and running so I can
move on to the next task.
I suppose I could set up some email filtering rules to limit what
comes in.
Sorting of incoming mail is essential if you belong to several
mailing lists. I'm sure that Yahoo will have some way of doing this
so that mail that matches a particular pattern will go into a
designated mail folder. As others have pointed out, the best pattern
to use is based on the List-Id header, which for this lists looks like
List-Id: User questions
I have a sorting rule that puts all of my freebsd.org lists (I
subscribe to several) in a specific folder. Because I'm sorting mail
with something called sieve (almost certainly not what Yahoo is
doing) my rule looks like
elsif header :contains ["List-Id"] "freebsd.org" {
fileinto "INBOX.LISTS.Comp.BSD"; stop;
}
But don't worry, you won't have to edit such rules by hand. Yahoo
will have a nice web interface for you.
2) To reply to an email, I have to copy/paste "freebsd-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]" into the "To" field. If I forget to do this,
my reply gets send to the sender only.
See? I almost forgot to do it for this reply. :-}
Most mailers (and I assume Yahoo! as well) make a distinction between
"Reply" and "Reply to all". It might be called something else on
Yahoo! but look for something that seems to mean the same thing.
For some discussion lists, things are configured so that the Reply-To
header in mail to the list will make a simple "Reply" to go just to
the list. There are fierce debates among list managers about whether
that is a good thing or a force for evil. I will not step into it
here, except to note that the people who configured this discussion
list made a conscious and informed choice about how to configure the
list. (Mailman allows lists to be set up either way.)
One feature I like about (some) list servers is the ability to send
a private message to another member. This comes in handy when one
person is helping troubleshoot a problem, and you don't need
everybody on the list to get involved.
That is what a simple "Reply" will do given how this list is set up.
Use Reply to All to send the response to the list as well.
I don't mean to present an argument from authority, but you are
clearly new to email discussion lists. The people who made the
choices about the configuration of this list have much more
experience about what works and what doesn't work. I managed my
first email list in 1986, and over the decades have formed some very
strong opinions. It's good for you to query things and point out
stuff that doesn't seem to work right. It wouldn't be the first time
that the experts are wrong. But do keep in mind that most everything
you encounter has been configured or designed the way it is for a
reason. And so when you run into something that seems strange or
annoying to you, the question to ask is not "why can't we do it
right?" but "why are things set up as they are?"
Once you get used to the way of doing things on proper email
discussion lists, you'll never want to go back to anything like
Yahoo! Groups.
Cheers,
-j
Re: Proper list server? (was Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?)
Thanks, Chuck. Subscription Options has an option "Which topic categories would you like to subscribe to?" that has "No topics defined", but I don't see any list of topic categories or a way to select them. Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, L-- On Apr 11, 2007, at 12:14 PM, L Goodwin wrote: > 1) I get all email posted to freebsd-questions in my inbox > (actually, some end up in "bulk mail" folder). That's a lot of mail > to wade through. I'm trying to get a system up and running so I can > move on to the next task. I suppose I could set up some email > filtering rules to limit what comes in. You can follow the link to Mailman at the bottom of every list message, log in using your email addr (boink on the button to have it send you your password, if you don't remember it), and change your delivery preference to digest mode or even disable delivery entirely: http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions In addition, Mailman sets the List-ID header recommended by the RFCs, which means you can easily filter email from the list to another mailbox, via procmail or your mail client's native filtering. > 2) To reply to an email, I have to copy/paste "freebsd- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" into the "To" field. If I forget to do this, > my reply gets send to the sender only. > See? I almost forgot to do it for this reply. :-} Most mail clients have both a "reply" and "reply to all" capability; the local convention on the FreeBSD mailing lists is to use reply-to- all, perhaps unless you know that the other person is subscribed. > One feature I like about (some) list servers is the ability to send > a private message to another member. This comes in handy when one > person is helping troubleshoot a problem, and you don't need > everybody on the list to get involved. Nothing stops you from sending private email to someone else directly, but normally you want to CC: the list so that everyone can benefit from the advice or suggestions being made. Taking a thread to private email tends to be done more when you need to discuss private config files which contain passwords or some such... -- -Chuck - Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Wednesday 11 April 2007, Steve Franks wrote: > Say, I've been meaning to install ataidle for awhile, as my server handles > approximately 3-5 requests for cvs per 24 hours, and I'm a pragmatic > believer in the dangers of global warming, and I've never had a disk go bad > on my old w2k systems, even though they spun up/down at least 20-50 times a > day (on my desktop). > > It's non-obivous, however, from the docs/man wether ataide makes persistent > changes, or if you need to run it from cron, rc, etc. Anyone know the > 'proper' usage for ataidle? > > I found this: http://andreas.syndrom23.de/drupal/files/ataidle which might > be of general interest to folks along these same lines. No idea if it's > correct usage, however. > > Thanks, > Steve You only need to run it once at startup to set the various acoustic and idle time settings. If you know you won't be needing your disks after a specific time a cronjob (spinning down the disks immidiately) might be a good method too. Regards, Pieter ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
Say, I've been meaning to install ataidle for awhile, as my server handles approximately 3-5 requests for cvs per 24 hours, and I'm a pragmatic believer in the dangers of global warming, and I've never had a disk go bad on my old w2k systems, even though they spun up/down at least 20-50 times a day (on my desktop). It's non-obivous, however, from the docs/man wether ataide makes persistent changes, or if you need to run it from cron, rc, etc. Anyone know the 'proper' usage for ataidle? I found this: http://andreas.syndrom23.de/drupal/files/ataidle which might be of general interest to folks along these same lines. No idea if it's correct usage, however. Thanks, Steve On 4/9/07, Pieter de Goeje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sunday 08 April 2007, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Hello again all, > I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means to > spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by chance. > Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' lives :). > TIA, > -Garrett Take a look at ataidle (sysutils/ataidle). Dunno if it helps with their life expectancy, but it certainly is quieter without the disks spinning :). HTH, Pieter de Goeje ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to " [EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Steve Franks, KE7BTE Staff Engineer La Palma Devices, LLC http://www.lapalmadevices.com (520) 312-0089 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Proper list server? (was Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?)
L Goodwin, Wrap your lines; To reply to both list and sender use "Reply to all"; To send a "private" message delete [EMAIL PROTECTED]; To and so on. Control everything yourself! But I think that the best is to use some normal mailer program that support simple list handling. It's not like some kind of forum and it's all about transparent architecture and freedom. - Yuri On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:14:54 -0700 (PDT) L Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, Jonathan, since you asked, here are the things I've found cumbersome > about freebsd-questions, some/all of which may be due to my own ignorance: > > 1) I get all email posted to freebsd-questions in my inbox (actually, some > end up in "bulk mail" folder). That's a lot of mail to wade through. I'm > trying to get a system up and running so I can move on to the next task. > I suppose I could set up some email filtering rules to limit what comes in. > > 2) To reply to an email, I have to copy/paste "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" > into the "To" field. If I forget to do this, my reply gets send to the sender > only. > See? I almost forgot to do it for this reply. :-} > > One feature I like about (some) list servers is the ability to send a private > message to another member. This comes in handy when one person is helping > troubleshoot a problem, and you don't need everybody on the list to get > involved. > > Jonathan McKeown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 April 2007 05:12, L Goodwin wrote: > > For starters, how about getting this mail group on a proper list server? > > I'll gladly help if there is anything I can do other than get in the way... > > I normally try not to be rude, but... > > what on Earth are you talking about? What is it about a Mailman installation > on a host within the freebsd.org domain that renders it less than proper? > > Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Proper list server? (was Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?)
Hi, L-- On Apr 11, 2007, at 12:14 PM, L Goodwin wrote: 1) I get all email posted to freebsd-questions in my inbox (actually, some end up in "bulk mail" folder). That's a lot of mail to wade through. I'm trying to get a system up and running so I can move on to the next task. I suppose I could set up some email filtering rules to limit what comes in. You can follow the link to Mailman at the bottom of every list message, log in using your email addr (boink on the button to have it send you your password, if you don't remember it), and change your delivery preference to digest mode or even disable delivery entirely: http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions In addition, Mailman sets the List-ID header recommended by the RFCs, which means you can easily filter email from the list to another mailbox, via procmail or your mail client's native filtering. 2) To reply to an email, I have to copy/paste "freebsd- [EMAIL PROTECTED]" into the "To" field. If I forget to do this, my reply gets send to the sender only. See? I almost forgot to do it for this reply. :-} Most mail clients have both a "reply" and "reply to all" capability; the local convention on the FreeBSD mailing lists is to use reply-to- all, perhaps unless you know that the other person is subscribed. One feature I like about (some) list servers is the ability to send a private message to another member. This comes in handy when one person is helping troubleshoot a problem, and you don't need everybody on the list to get involved. Nothing stops you from sending private email to someone else directly, but normally you want to CC: the list so that everyone can benefit from the advice or suggestions being made. Taking a thread to private email tends to be done more when you need to discuss private config files which contain passwords or some such... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Proper list server? (was Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?)
Well, Jonathan, since you asked, here are the things I've found cumbersome about freebsd-questions, some/all of which may be due to my own ignorance: 1) I get all email posted to freebsd-questions in my inbox (actually, some end up in "bulk mail" folder). That's a lot of mail to wade through. I'm trying to get a system up and running so I can move on to the next task. I suppose I could set up some email filtering rules to limit what comes in. 2) To reply to an email, I have to copy/paste "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" into the "To" field. If I forget to do this, my reply gets send to the sender only. See? I almost forgot to do it for this reply. :-} One feature I like about (some) list servers is the ability to send a private message to another member. This comes in handy when one person is helping troubleshoot a problem, and you don't need everybody on the list to get involved. Jonathan McKeown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 11 April 2007 05:12, L Goodwin wrote: > For starters, how about getting this mail group on a proper list server? > I'll gladly help if there is anything I can do other than get in the way... I normally try not to be rude, but... what on Earth are you talking about? What is it about a Mailman installation on a host within the freebsd.org domain that renders it less than proper? Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" - Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 09:06:15PM -0400, Jules Gilbert wrote:
> Boy, do I want answers too!
>
> We have HD's that run 24X7. And I don't want to turn them off, I
> just want them to sleep quietly until needed. We have lot's of RAM,
> thus plenty of cache space.
>
> Our machines are all blades. (Does this matter? I don't know.)
> IBMs and Super-Micros.
>
> We spend zillions of bucks on electricity; We use these machines
> 24X7 now, but soon will only need them about 12 hours a day. Is 24X7
> operation the optimal strategy?
>
> What's the best course here, wrt electric costs, and wrt disk failures?
>
Re disc failures, I recommend investing as many hours/days as
necessay to decide what it (abs) critical. Config files from
as many lcations as reqired, e.g. If you have a tape drive,
copy the critical files there. Buy as many 200-300GB dics as
required to cross-backup your important, but not necessarily
critical files. And cron ssh backups N times daily... N >=1.
(I bup some files twice a day.)
Power is not going to do anything but get more costly; at the
same time, if you lost all your data in a *poof*, how much would
you be willing to pay to have things back?
--A parenthetical note: yes, cross-backing up does pay off.
Recently, I mv'd a file (innocently, I thought) *over* another
files and lost a few hour technical work. LUCKILY, I had the
original file on my laptop {Whew} I almost lways save mods
by RCS { ci -l }... but --
> --jg
>
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Yuri Grebenkin wrote:
>
> >Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all.
> >Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch?
> >What do you think?
> >
> >>Hello again all,
> >>I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed
> >>means to
> >>spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by
> >>chance.
> >>Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks'
> >>lives :).
> >>TIA,
> >>-Garrett
> >___
> >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:06:15 -0400 Jules Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Boy, do I want answers too! > > We have HD's that run 24X7. And I don't want to turn them off, I > just want them to sleep quietly until needed. We have lot's of RAM, > thus plenty of cache space. > > Our machines are all blades. (Does this matter? I don't know.) > IBMs and Super-Micros. > > We spend zillions of bucks on electricity; We use these machines > 24X7 now, but soon will only need them about 12 hours a day. Is 24X7 > operation the optimal strategy? > > What's the best course here, wrt electric costs, and wrt disk failures? That's the point! Electric costs vs failures. If financial side is the interest, - obvioulsy statistics and calculator. My original question sounded like "what's the safest way". Let's see: An HD in full operation get definitely hot and hence (evidently) consuming power. And then it turns to sleeping mode and becomes cooler... cooler... Then (maybe) this process repeats all the time. Despite even cold turning on stresses these permanent temperature differences can't be good. Conclusion might be like this: If one has certain amount of trusted drives and they are expected to sleep reasonable time only a few times a day then one should save energy, thinking of tuning wakeups and regular backup. The same with stations that rarely use HDs and/or do their stuff (if any) using only RAM. If a machine is under constant load, or expected to wake up once per several hours it's better to leave it all in peace :). It seems somewhat hard to estimate sleeping periods accurately in this case. And even huge cache can be a reason for unexpected need in accessing a bit of disk data. As Gary Kline said, slowing down drives could be a good idea in some circumstances. There are so many user desktops running only a text processor and... heating the air! What for? And there is more to it, these desktops are everywhere and all of them together burn too much more energy resources than server and development installations, like ones, I hope, we are talking about. And I think that stability of latter ones is a concern (to serve the rest of "production" teapots). Finally, if one is using (it's highly encouraged!) FreeBSD at home to do all sort of things, let's experiment with power savings too! Because the feature must retain in OS and improve with overall experience and support. - Yuri > > --jg > > > > On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Yuri Grebenkin wrote: > > > Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all. > > Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch? > > What do you think? > > > >> Hello again all, > >>I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed > >> means to > >> spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by > >> chance. > >>Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' > >> lives :). > >> TIA, > >> -Garrett > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Proper list server? (was Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?)
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 05:12, L Goodwin wrote: > For starters, how about getting this mail group on a proper list server? > I'll gladly help if there is anything I can do other than get in the way... I normally try not to be rude, but... what on Earth are you talking about? What is it about a Mailman installation on a host within the freebsd.org domain that renders it less than proper? Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
I'm with you, Jules! I still haven't gotten FreeBSD to boot on my one file server, but am concerned about my client's power bill. I had suggested a SAN "toaster", but then he produced this 1998 vintage server from the back of a closet. It has redundant 300W power supply, 4 case fans that run constantly, 6 SCSI drives, a CD-ROM drive, floppy drive, tape drive. I had to disable ACPI to get the FreeBSD installer to boot, so no power management. Surely the wonderful folks who produce free Windows alternatives realize that Intel and Microsoft have effectively abandoned many older hardware platforms don't meet Vista's requirements, but (could) happily run alternative software. For starters, how about getting this mail group on a proper list server? I'll gladly help if there is anything I can do other than get in the way... Jules Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Boy, do I want answers too! We have HD's that run 24X7. And I don't want to turn them off, I just want them to sleep quietly until needed. We have lot's of RAM, thus plenty of cache space. Our machines are all blades. (Does this matter? I don't know.) IBMs and Super-Micros. We spend zillions of bucks on electricity; We use these machines 24X7 now, but soon will only need them about 12 hours a day. Is 24X7 operation the optimal strategy? What's the best course here, wrt electric costs, and wrt disk failures? --jg On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Yuri Grebenkin wrote: > Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all. > Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch? > What do you think? > >> Hello again all, >> I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed >> means to >> spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by >> chance. >> Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' >> lives :). >> TIA, >> -Garrett > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" - No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
Boy, do I want answers too! We have HD's that run 24X7. And I don't want to turn them off, I just want them to sleep quietly until needed. We have lot's of RAM, thus plenty of cache space. Our machines are all blades. (Does this matter? I don't know.) IBMs and Super-Micros. We spend zillions of bucks on electricity; We use these machines 24X7 now, but soon will only need them about 12 hours a day. Is 24X7 operation the optimal strategy? What's the best course here, wrt electric costs, and wrt disk failures? --jg On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Yuri Grebenkin wrote: Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all. Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch? What do you think? Hello again all, I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means to spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by chance. Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' lives :). TIA, -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
O/H Garrett Cooper έγραψε: i would agree that the greatest stress on a disk might just be while its turning on from cold... but with the warranties that seagate is offering these days, i feel bold enough to power them off/on at least once a day. Well, I feel the same but only about WD's drives. Seagate's newer drives seem to die a lot more frequently than they used to (I've had 4 / 7 Seagate drives die on me in the past few months and 1/6 WD drives die on me). Lately there has been a report on hard-disk failures from Google's own system usage. http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/2007/03/03/google-hard-drive-failures-high-temps-may-not-cause-failures-maybe/ There is also this abstract from 5th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/schroeder.html Just watch out for those slim sized 3,5" Maxtor disks. Several of the 20G and 40G models, in a 5-year time span, crashed and burned in customers' PCs with 0% data recovery. Also there has been some problem with SATA cabling (the data cable). Brand new SATA2 disks on eight brand new PCs, randomly experiencing slow OS boot or reporting problems finding files. Shortly after a disk developed bad sectors and noticing similar problems on the other PCs, I swapped all SATA cables with different ones. I have yet to hear a complaint. -- RTFM and STFW before anything bad happens _ Thanos Rizoulis Electronic Computing Systems Engineer Larissa, Greece FreeBSD/PCBSD user ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Sunday 08 April 2007, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Hello again all, > I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means to > spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by chance. > Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' lives :). > TIA, > -Garrett Take a look at ataidle (sysutils/ataidle). Dunno if it helps with their life expectancy, but it certainly is quieter without the disks spinning :). HTH, Pieter de Goeje ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 04:11:51PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Gary Kline wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:17PM +0400, Yuri Grebenkin wrote:
> >
> >>Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all.
> >>Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch?
> >>What do you think?
> >>
> >
> >
> > My guess (really a SWAG) is that it's bettter to leave things
> > just happily spinning, 24*7. In Nov, '99 a power off//on
> > destryed my new (105-day-old) 9G SCSI drive. Off ffor fewer
> > than five seconds, then a spike or two, and the drive went
> > deadder than a decade-old corpse. Lost 10 months of files.
> > ((Well, my tape backup had flubbed up.))
> >
> > Who would know???I've heard both sides, and so far, just
> > leaving drive spin seems slightly better.
> >
> > {Futureistic[?] idea: maybe a new drive can have a mode of
> > Full-Operation and (slower) Spin. It wouldn't take more than
> > a second to transition from the slow-spin to full-op mode.
> > Open files, OS states, and whatever could be stored to RAM... .
> >
> > Any little old winemakers, er, diskmakers out there?
> > }
> >
> Good point. The worst stress points during a disks life are at spin-up
> from what I've read.
Hm. Yep, that's what happpened with my 9G SCSI it just
kind of ground or dragged on startup. After 3 tries, it was
kuput.
>
> Also, about the disk spinning at different speeds: many contemporary
> disks have "acoustics" levels where you can adjust the speed on demand
> (assuming you knew the hardware level instructions to send to the
> controllers). Unfortunately I don't know those settings, so I can't say
> what is and isn't possible.
>
> The only upside is at least all disk makers seem to be amalgamating into
> either: Fujitsu, Hitachi, Quantum, Seagate, and WD, so figuring out the
> standards shouldn't be *too* hard =).
Anyway, I like the idea of saving drives and power if a computer
isn't active. Else if everything can fit into RAM. ...
gary
>
> -Garrett
>
> > gary-the-thrifty
> >
> >
> >>>Hello again all,
> >>> I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means
> >>> to
> >>>spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by chance.
> >>> Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' lives
> >>> :).
> >>>TIA,
> >>>-Garrett
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
Jonathan Horne wrote:
On Sunday 08 April 2007 18:11:51 Garrett Cooper wrote:
Gary Kline wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:17PM +0400, Yuri Grebenkin wrote:
Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all.
Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch?
What do you think?
My guess (really a SWAG) is that it's bettter to leave things
just happily spinning, 24*7. In Nov, '99 a power off//on
destryed my new (105-day-old) 9G SCSI drive. Off ffor fewer
than five seconds, then a spike or two, and the drive went
deadder than a decade-old corpse. Lost 10 months of files.
((Well, my tape backup had flubbed up.))
Who would know???I've heard both sides, and so far, just
leaving drive spin seems slightly better.
{Futureistic[?] idea: maybe a new drive can have a mode of
Full-Operation and (slower) Spin. It wouldn't take more than
a second to transition from the slow-spin to full-op mode.
Open files, OS states, and whatever could be stored to RAM... .
Any little old winemakers, er, diskmakers out there?
}
Good point. The worst stress points during a disks life are at spin-up
from what I've read.
Also, about the disk spinning at different speeds: many contemporary
disks have "acoustics" levels where you can adjust the speed on demand
(assuming you knew the hardware level instructions to send to the
controllers). Unfortunately I don't know those settings, so I can't say
what is and isn't possible.
The only upside is at least all disk makers seem to be amalgamating into
either: Fujitsu, Hitachi, Quantum, Seagate, and WD, so figuring out the
standards shouldn't be *too* hard =).
-Garrett
gary-the-thrifty
Hello again all,
I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means to
spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by
chance. Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks'
lives :). TIA,
-Garrett
personally, my solution for solving the "lower power consumption but still
remotely available" issue, by configuring Wake On Lan. my web server is
always on, so i just installed net/wakeonlan there. simple lines in crontab
wake all the rest of my hosts each morning (after im gone to the office of
course) for backups, and then they all power themselves back down about 2
hours later. during the day, if i need to get to a system while im still
remote, i just log into the webserver and wake it backup again.
i would agree that the greatest stress on a disk might just be while its
turning on from cold... but with the warranties that seagate is offering
these days, i feel bold enough to power them off/on at least once a day.
Well, I feel the same but only about WD's drives. Seagate's newer drives
seem to die a lot more frequently than they used to (I've had 4 / 7
Seagate drives die on me in the past few months and 1/6 WD drives die on
me).
But then again that's my take on stuff :).
-Garrett
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Sunday 08 April 2007 18:11:51 Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Gary Kline wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:17PM +0400, Yuri Grebenkin wrote:
> >> Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all.
> >> Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch?
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > My guess (really a SWAG) is that it's bettter to leave things
> > just happily spinning, 24*7. In Nov, '99 a power off//on
> > destryed my new (105-day-old) 9G SCSI drive. Off ffor fewer
> > than five seconds, then a spike or two, and the drive went
> > deadder than a decade-old corpse. Lost 10 months of files.
> > ((Well, my tape backup had flubbed up.))
> >
> > Who would know???I've heard both sides, and so far, just
> > leaving drive spin seems slightly better.
> >
> > {Futureistic[?] idea: maybe a new drive can have a mode of
> > Full-Operation and (slower) Spin. It wouldn't take more than
> > a second to transition from the slow-spin to full-op mode.
> > Open files, OS states, and whatever could be stored to RAM... .
> >
> > Any little old winemakers, er, diskmakers out there?
> > }
>
> Good point. The worst stress points during a disks life are at spin-up
> from what I've read.
>
> Also, about the disk spinning at different speeds: many contemporary
> disks have "acoustics" levels where you can adjust the speed on demand
> (assuming you knew the hardware level instructions to send to the
> controllers). Unfortunately I don't know those settings, so I can't say
> what is and isn't possible.
>
> The only upside is at least all disk makers seem to be amalgamating into
> either: Fujitsu, Hitachi, Quantum, Seagate, and WD, so figuring out the
> standards shouldn't be *too* hard =).
>
> -Garrett
>
> > gary-the-thrifty
> >
> >>> Hello again all,
> >>> I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means to
> >>> spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by
> >>> chance. Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks'
> >>> lives :). TIA,
> >>> -Garrett
>
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
personally, my solution for solving the "lower power consumption but still
remotely available" issue, by configuring Wake On Lan. my web server is
always on, so i just installed net/wakeonlan there. simple lines in crontab
wake all the rest of my hosts each morning (after im gone to the office of
course) for backups, and then they all power themselves back down about 2
hours later. during the day, if i need to get to a system while im still
remote, i just log into the webserver and wake it backup again.
i would agree that the greatest stress on a disk might just be while its
turning on from cold... but with the warranties that seagate is offering
these days, i feel bold enough to power them off/on at least once a day.
--
Jonathan Horne
http://dfwlpiki.dfwlp.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
Gary Kline wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:17PM +0400, Yuri Grebenkin wrote:
Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all.
Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch?
What do you think?
My guess (really a SWAG) is that it's bettter to leave things
just happily spinning, 24*7. In Nov, '99 a power off//on
destryed my new (105-day-old) 9G SCSI drive. Off ffor fewer
than five seconds, then a spike or two, and the drive went
deadder than a decade-old corpse. Lost 10 months of files.
((Well, my tape backup had flubbed up.))
Who would know???I've heard both sides, and so far, just
leaving drive spin seems slightly better.
{Futureistic[?] idea: maybe a new drive can have a mode of
Full-Operation and (slower) Spin. It wouldn't take more than
a second to transition from the slow-spin to full-op mode.
Open files, OS states, and whatever could be stored to RAM... .
Any little old winemakers, er, diskmakers out there?
}
Good point. The worst stress points during a disks life are at spin-up
from what I've read.
Also, about the disk spinning at different speeds: many contemporary
disks have "acoustics" levels where you can adjust the speed on demand
(assuming you knew the hardware level instructions to send to the
controllers). Unfortunately I don't know those settings, so I can't say
what is and isn't possible.
The only upside is at least all disk makers seem to be amalgamating into
either: Fujitsu, Hitachi, Quantum, Seagate, and WD, so figuring out the
standards shouldn't be *too* hard =).
-Garrett
gary-the-thrifty
Hello again all,
I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means to
spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by chance.
Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' lives :).
TIA,
-Garrett
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:17PM +0400, Yuri Grebenkin wrote:
> Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all.
> Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch?
> What do you think?
My guess (really a SWAG) is that it's bettter to leave things
just happily spinning, 24*7. In Nov, '99 a power off//on
destryed my new (105-day-old) 9G SCSI drive. Off ffor fewer
than five seconds, then a spike or two, and the drive went
deadder than a decade-old corpse. Lost 10 months of files.
((Well, my tape backup had flubbed up.))
Who would know???I've heard both sides, and so far, just
leaving drive spin seems slightly better.
{Futureistic[?] idea: maybe a new drive can have a mode of
Full-Operation and (slower) Spin. It wouldn't take more than
a second to transition from the slow-spin to full-op mode.
Open files, OS states, and whatever could be stored to RAM... .
Any little old winemakers, er, diskmakers out there?
}
gary-the-thrifty
>
> > Hello again all,
> > I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means to
> > spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by chance.
> > Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' lives :).
> > TIA,
> > -Garrett
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
Yuri Grebenkin wrote:
> Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all.
> Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch?
> What do you think?
>
>> Hello again all,
>> I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means to
>> spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by chance.
>> Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' lives :).
>> TIA,
>> -Garrett
But I thought that disks keep on rotating, even when they're not being
accessed, unless you run {cam,ata}control stop.
That's similar to what Windows / MacOSX do at least.
-Garrett
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Automatic means for spinning down disks available?
Just wonder if it's better for an HDD not to spindown at all. Maybe it's safer to spin in peace than to park/launch? What do you think? > Hello again all, > I was wondering if there was an automatic, and possibly timed means to > spin down disks available in either ports or the base system, by chance. > Just trying to cut down on energy use, and increase my disks' lives :). > TIA, > -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
