Re: [CentOS] Disk near failure
Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto: On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25, Alessandro Baggi wrote: Il 24/10/2016 14:05, Leonard den Ottolander ha scritto: On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 12:07 +0200, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === > SMART Error Log not supported I reckon there's a between those lines. The line right after the first should read something like: SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED or "FAILED" for that matter. If not try running smartctl -t short /dev/sda , wait for the indicated time to expire, then check the output of smartctl -a (or -x) again. Regards, Leonard. Hi Leonard, after a smart short test, the output of smartctl -a /dev/... is === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Model Family: SandForce Driven SSDs Device Model: Corsair Force GT Serial Number:1229794815020A81 LU WWN Device Id: 0 00 0 Firmware Version: 5.02 User Capacity:120,034,123,776 bytes [120 GB] Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical Rotation Rate:Solid State Device Device is:In smartctl database [for details use: -P show] ATA Version is: ATA8-ACS, ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3 SATA Version is: SATA 3.0, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s) Local Time is:Thu Oct 27 11:22:22 2016 CEST SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED General SMART Values: Offline data collection status: (0x02) Offline data collection activity was completed without error. Auto Offline Data Collection: Disabled. Self-test execution status: ( 0) The previous self-test routine completed without error or no self-test has ever been run. Total time to complete Offline data collection:(0) seconds. Offline data collection capabilities:(0x7b) SMART execute Offline immediate. Auto Offline data collection on/off support. Suspend Offline collection upon new command. Offline surface scan supported. Self-test supported. Conveyance Self-test supported. Selective Self-test supported. SMART capabilities:(0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering power-saving mode. Supports SMART auto save timer. Error logging capability:(0x01) Error logging supported. General Purpose Logging supported. Short self-test routine recommended polling time:( 1) minutes. Extended self-test routine recommended polling time:( 48) minutes. Conveyance self-test routine recommended polling time:( 2) minutes. SCT capabilities: (0x0021) SCT Status supported. SCT Data Table supported. SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 120 120 050Pre-fail Always - 0/0 5 Retired_Block_Count 0x0033 100 100 003Pre-fail Always - 0 9 Power_On_Hours_and_Msec 0x0032 000 000 000Old_age Always - 17394h+07m+56.840s 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 099 099 000Old_age Always - 1974 171 Program_Fail_Count 0x0032 000 000 000Old_age Always - 0 172 Erase_Fail_Count 0x0032 000 000 000Old_age Always - 0 174 Unexpect_Power_Loss_Ct 0x0030 000 000 000Old_age Offline - 780 177 Wear_Range_Delta 0x 000 000 000Old_age Offline - 3 181 Program_Fail_Count 0x0032 000 000 000Old_age Always - 0 182 Erase_Fail_Count 0x0032 000 000 000Old_age Always - 0 187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 0 194 Temperature_Celsius0x0022 029 042 000Old_age Always - 29 (Min/Max 15/42) 195 ECC_Uncorr_Error_Count 0x001c 100 100 000Old_age Offline - 0/0 196 Reallocated_Event_Ct 0x0033 100 100 003Pre-fail Always - 0 201 Unc_Soft_Read_Err_Rate 0x001c 100 100 000Old_age Offline - 0/0 204 Soft_ECC_Correct_Rate 0x001c 100 100 000Old_age Offline - 0/0 230 Life_Curve_Status 0x0013 100 100 000Pre-fail Always - 100 231 SSD_Life_Left 0x0013 100 100 010Pre-fail Always - 0 233 SandForce_Internal 0x 000 000 000Old_age Offline - 6599 234 SandForc
Re: [CentOS] Disk near failure
On Fri, October 28, 2016 2:42 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto: >> For my personal use I would replace that Drive asap. >> - There is no warranty for it anymore (time since buy) >> - You can't buy it new anymore (discontinued) >> - There are more reliable drives available. >> >> I'd go for a Samsung Evo 850, that will give you five years of warranty. >> >> But, it's your drive, you make the decissions. >> >> - Yamaban. > > Thank you for your suggestion. > > What do you think about Corsair Neutron XTi 240 MLC? > Amazing. He suggested you definitely reliable drive (Samsung). Reliable in my boot too. You ask his opinion about yet another Corsair. One by Corsair failed on you already. So, you should have better knowledge about Corsair's SSD reliability, right? Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things made by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CVE-2016-5195 “DirtyCOW”: Critical Linux Kernel Flaw
On 10/22/2016 07:49 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > Dear All, > > I guess, we all have to urgently apply workaround, following, say, this: > > https://gryzli.info/2016/10/21/protect-cve-2016-5195-dirtycow-centos-7rhel7cpanelcloudlinux/ > > At least those of us who still have important multi user machines running > Linux. (Yes, me too, I do have a couple, thank goodness, the rest are > already not ;-) > > Have a productive weekend, everybody. > > Valeri > And to close the book on this CVE, I just pushed the CentOS-5.11 kernel to fix this issue as well: kernel-2.6.18-416.el5 So, the only thing we still have to release is a fixed kernel for the aarch64 AltArch SIG. And we are building a test kernel for that right now. ppc64le, ppc64, i686, arm32 for CentOS-7 .. and all released arches for CentOS-5 and CentOS-6 ... now all have updates released. Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Fwd: CentOS on new Dell
On 10/27/2016 04:22 PM, Michael B Allen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote: >> I've seen the thread(s) you started on CentOS mailing list about Dell and >> ThinkPad >> laptops and running Centos on 'em. >> >> Not sure if you've seen my question, but I'm considering to purchase a >> laptop, run EL7 on it, and I'm weighing between the Thinkpad and Latitude, >> so: >> >> What was it to make you opt for E7470 over, say, Carbon X1? According to >> RedHat's Hardware compatility list Carbon models are certified, >> while none of the Dell's aren't. >> >> Also, have you given up on CentOS over Fedora? I'd love to hear how's CentOS >> 7 support for E7470 hardware. > > Hi Milos, > > The Thinkpad T series and Latitude are *very* similar computers. They > are both business "ultrabooks" with a 1600x1080 display option, nice > keyboards (not "chicklet" style), a trackpoint and trackpad and RJ-45 > builtin. > > I bought a Dell Latitude E7470 over the Lenovo for several reasons. > One is this comment which is worth mentioning again: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Gordon Messmer > wrote: >> It's worth mentioning again that Dell is one of the companies doing the >> development for the bits that don't work, and that those drivers are often >> the ones that get Lenovo equipment going, too. Lenovo does not, to the best >> of my knowledge, do any Linux development. > > Another reason is that I have heard about people having problems with > Lenovo. Not just with software but with hardware malfunctions. I spoke > to someone on the phone that had hardware problems with their new > Thinkpad (although I suspect some of the problems could have been > misdiagnosis by the user). After describing how nice the E7470 they're > thinking about dumping their 1yo X250 and getting a Dell. > > As for the Carbon, that is a very different computer. The Carbon is an > ultralight / thin Macbook-like machine with Windows so I have no > advice for you there. > > I have not tried CentOS on the E7470 but I'm quite certain it would > not work because I have tried the latest Fedora Live which is about > 100 kernel revisions newer and even that doesn't completely work. > Specifically, if I plug in an external display it freezes. My feeling > is I need a newer display driver (and thus newer kernel). The only > other issue I noticed was that wireless didn't work but it seems more > like a glue issue and not necessarily a driver. Otherwise, suspend and > everything else worked near as I can tell which is actually pretty > impressive for a brand new machine. > > So, I am doing other things while this new E7470 ages like a fine > wine. Or maybe I'll loose patience and just install Fedora and try a > "vanilla" kernel package. Then maybe after a year or two CentOS 8 or > whatever will run on it and then I can just run steady for 4+ years > without getting pummeled by stupid updates and feature creep that you > get with Fedora and Ubuntu or whatever the latest hot distro is. > > The E7470 is obviously a laptop of choice for business people. And > that is the type of machine developers use. So chances of good > compatibility are very high. You just have to give it time. > > I was watching Daredevil season 1 and they use Latitudes that look > exactly like mine. And that was probably filmed in 2014. So the form > factor at least has been around for a while which is good. > Unfortunately I can't say the same thing about the show. We have a newer installer that has a newer kernel than the base CentOS-7 ISOs here, if anyone is having hardware detection / boot issues with the standerd ISOs: http://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/isos/x86_64/ The *-99.iso are the ones with the newer installers .. so these are the latest right now: http://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/isos/x86_64/CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1609-99.iso http://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/isos/x86_64/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1609-99.iso Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CVE-2016-5195 âDirtyCOWâ: Critical Linux Kernel Flaw
On Fri, October 28, 2016 9:43 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 10/22/2016 07:49 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I guess, we all have to urgently apply workaround, following, say, this: >> >> https://gryzli.info/2016/10/21/protect-cve-2016-5195-dirtycow-centos-7rhel7cpanelcloudlinux/ >> >> At least those of us who still have important multi user machines >> running >> Linux. (Yes, me too, I do have a couple, thank goodness, the rest are >> already not ;-) >> >> Have a productive weekend, everybody. >> >> Valeri >> > > And to close the book on this CVE, I just pushed the CentOS-5.11 kernel > to fix this issue as well: > > kernel-2.6.18-416.el5 Johnny, thanks a lot!! (even though on my most ancient venerable couple of boxes still running CentOS 5 users can not execute anything of their own, so the boxes are immune to hack from inside, is still gives one great feeling to have kernel patched). Thanks again for the great job you, guys are doing! Valeri > > So, the only thing we still have to release is a fixed kernel for the > aarch64 AltArch SIG. And we are building a test kernel for that right > now. > > ppc64le, ppc64, i686, arm32 for CentOS-7 .. and all released arches for > CentOS-5 and CentOS-6 ... now all have updates released. > > Thanks, > Johnny Hughes > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Disk near failure
Il 28/10/2016 16:28, Valeri Galtsev ha scritto: On Fri, October 28, 2016 2:42 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote: Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto: For my personal use I would replace that Drive asap. - There is no warranty for it anymore (time since buy) - You can't buy it new anymore (discontinued) - There are more reliable drives available. I'd go for a Samsung Evo 850, that will give you five years of warranty. But, it's your drive, you make the decissions. - Yamaban. Thank you for your suggestion. What do you think about Corsair Neutron XTi 240 MLC? Amazing. He suggested you definitely reliable drive (Samsung). Reliable in my boot too. You ask his opinion about yet another Corsair. One by Corsair failed on you already. So, you should have better knowledge about Corsair's SSD reliability, right? Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things made by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Sorry, but my 2 ssds corsair does not report error and works fine, with good performances and without realloc. These disks are not failed. Yes, they are failing but these are old driver and this is a desktop under raid. Consider that these drive are 5 years old, for me this is not bad ssd brand, there are best brand but corsair is not too bad. Now, Yamaban had suggested samsung because this is the best choice. This does not exclude that there are other products (that can be less reliable and less performant at lower cost) that for my case are good enough. Corsair neutron has also 5 years of warrenty. > Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things made > by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what > creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. > If you are AMD user and your old AMD cpu died, You think that AMD must burn due to a cpu failure? Great. I'm with you in the case where you buy a disk and after 3/6 months it fails (and this can happen also with very good brand) and this is not the case. Backblaze must burn all brand because many disks fails Now about bad hardware manufacturing companies it's another problem. These companies point to low cost consumer, due the fact that not anyone can get the best hardware due to money. An example? Corsair LE 480 GB (100$) vs Samsung SSD Serie 850 Pro 512GB (260$). 850 Pro is better, but more expensive, and Corsair LE has 3 year of warrenty. Maybe an user can spend his money for a vga or a better cpu. These bad companies permit some users to get hw for less money without a great expecation for cheapest use case and their ability to pay. Than if these cheap companies must not exist, the user must not use a new technology (at lower cost)? The IT gap. Sorry, my (m.)2 cents. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Disk near failure
On Fri, October 28, 2016 11:50 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > Il 28/10/2016 16:28, Valeri Galtsev ha scritto: >> >> On Fri, October 28, 2016 2:42 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>> Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto: For my personal use I would replace that Drive asap. - There is no warranty for it anymore (time since buy) - You can't buy it new anymore (discontinued) - There are more reliable drives available. I'd go for a Samsung Evo 850, that will give you five years of warranty. But, it's your drive, you make the decissions. - Yamaban. >>> >>> Thank you for your suggestion. >>> >>> What do you think about Corsair Neutron XTi 240 MLC? >>> >> >> Amazing. He suggested you definitely reliable drive (Samsung). Reliable >> in >> my boot too. You ask his opinion about yet another Corsair. One by >> Corsair >> failed on you already. So, you should have better knowledge about >> Corsair's SSD reliability, right? >> >> Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things >> made >> by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what >> creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. >> >> Valeri >> >> >> Valeri Galtsev >> Sr System Administrator >> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics >> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics >> University of Chicago >> Phone: 773-702-4247 >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > Sorry, but my 2 ssds corsair does not report error and works fine, with > good performances and without realloc. These disks are not failed. Yes, > they are failing but these are old driver and this is a desktop under > raid. Consider that these drive are 5 years old, for me this is not bad > ssd brand, there are best brand but corsair is not too bad. > > Now, Yamaban had suggested samsung because this is the best choice. This > does not exclude that there are other products (that can be less > reliable and less performant at lower cost) that for my case are good > enough. Corsair neutron has also 5 years of warrenty. > > > Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things > made > > by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what > > creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. > > > > If you are AMD user and your old AMD cpu died, You think that AMD must > burn due to a cpu failure? Great. > I'm with you in the case where you buy a disk and after 3/6 months it > fails (and this can happen also with very good brand) and this is not > the case. Backblaze must burn all brand because many disks fails > > Now about bad hardware manufacturing companies it's another problem. > These companies point to low cost consumer, due the fact that not anyone > can get the best hardware due to money. An example? Corsair LE 480 GB > (100$) vs Samsung SSD Serie 850 Pro 512GB (260$). 850 Pro is better, > but more expensive, and Corsair LE has 3 year of warrenty. Maybe an user > can spend his money for a vga or a better cpu. These bad companies > permit some users to get hw for less money without a great expecation > for cheapest use case and their ability to pay. Yes, indeed, I'm with you on that. Market is driven by low budget (ignorant - not to offend, but to just qualify in insight into hardware) consumer. Which indeed leads to "fake raid" chips (aka "software" raid), and many other bad things. I sometimes have to deal with what students have ordered themselves. Hence excessive attitude. As they order before they hear from me: "pricegrabber is an enemy in choosing reliable hardware". Then all leads to downtime, someone has to spend time on repairing the darn thing. Whereas, if one pays mere 15% more and gets good hardware, future losses (including human time which is very expensive) can be avoided. Alas, SSD difference in hand is larger that 15%, hence probably nobody will dare to help with advice. If there is good advice that is. I for one did go with Samsung SSD... Valeri > > Than if these cheap companies must not exist, the user must not use a > new technology (at lower cost)? The IT gap. > > Sorry, my (m.)2 cents. > > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Re: Disk near failure
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:50, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Il 28/10/2016 16:28, Valeri Galtsev ha scritto:
On Fri, October 28, 2016 2:42 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
> Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto:
> > For my personal use I would replace that Drive asap.
> > - There is no warranty for it anymore (time since buy)
> > - You can't buy it new anymore (discontinued)
> > - There are more reliable drives available.
> >
> > I'd go for a Samsung Evo 850, that will give you five years of
> > warranty.
> >
> > But, it's your drive, you make the decissions.
> >
> > - Yamaban.
>
> Thank you for your suggestion.
>
> What do you think about Corsair Neutron XTi 240 MLC?
>
Amazing. He suggested you definitely reliable drive (Samsung). Reliable in
my boot too. You ask his opinion about yet another Corsair. One by Corsair
failed on you already. So, you should have better knowledge about
Corsair's SSD reliability, right?
Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things made
by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what
creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist.
[snip]
Sorry, but my 2 ssds corsair does not report error and works fine, with good
performances and without realloc. These disks are not failed. Yes, they are
failing but these are old driver and this is a desktop under raid. Consider
that these drive are 5 years old, for me this is not bad ssd brand, there are
best brand but corsair is not too bad.
Now, Yamaban had suggested samsung because this is the best choice. This does
not exclude that there are other products (that can be less reliable and less
performant at lower cost) that for my case are good enough. Corsair neutron
has also 5 years of warrenty.
Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things made
by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what
creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist.
If you are AMD user and your old AMD cpu died, You think that AMD must burn
due to a cpu failure? Great.
I'm with you in the case where you buy a disk and after 3/6 months it fails
(and this can happen also with very good brand) and this is not the case.
Backblaze must burn all brand because many disks fails
Now about bad hardware manufacturing companies it's another problem. These
companies point to low cost consumer, due the fact that not anyone can get the
best hardware due to money. An example? Corsair LE 480 GB (100$) vs Samsung
SSD Serie 850 Pro 512GB (260$). 850 Pro is better, but more expensive, and
Corsair LE has 3 year of warrenty. Maybe an user can spend his money for a
vga or a better cpu. These bad companies permit some users to get hw for less
money without a great expecation for cheapest use case and their ability to
pay.
Than if these cheap companies must not exist, the user must not use a new
technology (at lower cost)? The IT gap.
Sorry, my (m.)2 cents.
I'm VERY unsure how to answer on "The Question" of what SSD to buy.
Religious wars have been fought over less.
So, I'll give a intro on how I select a product for myself, and a view
into how I personally priorise specification requirements.
- Reliability. A "new" Technology (e.g. SLC -> MLC -> TLC) has to be on
the market for at least a year as a 3-5 year warranty customer product,
or at least 3 month on the market as a 5-10 year warranty datacenter one.
- Thrustworthyness. How does the manufacturer handle a product gaffe?
* Denial, delay, FUD -> drop that manufacturer, not worthy at all.
* Acceptance of proof, offer of upwards replacement -> good, keep.
- Openness on product specification.
Full specs should be available on manufacturer web site at no cost.
Proof of specs by testing of not-paid-for-it Third party? Good!
In your case, be very thankfull that you got 5 years out of the disks,
not may got that.
After some datalosses due to sudden drive failure, I'm replaceing my
drives after ca 3 years at similar runtime ("on"-time hours), and that
is why I encurage you to replace your drive. Not to drive the economy.
In the past "Corsair" was a power enthusiast product, and the time-cycle
for those "enthusiast" was 2 to 3 years. No problem for most of the
"Corsair" products.
With view on SSD you have to seperate the classes / groups:
1. Datacenter: 100% on time, 100% backup, failure time is very expensive.
2. Professional: 30-100% on time, 80-100% backup, dataloss is expensive.
3. Longtime User: 15-100% on time, 15-100% backup, dataloss is hassle.
4. Power-Enthusiast: 100% Speed, Backup? -- Can you eat that?
5. "Walmart" and Co: some speed, some use time, dataloss is your problem.
(Prices are for Europe, Germany, online buy)
The "Samsung SSD 850 Pro" with 10year warranty, 2. group, 256GiB ~ 125€
The "Samsung SSD 850 Evo" with 5 year warranty, 3. group, 250GiB ~ 90€
The "Corsair Neutron XTi" with 5 year warranty, 3
Re: [CentOS] Disk near failure
For me the answer for this is: use what you need. For example consider raid. On my desktop I have an mdadm raid level mirror. It is only a desktop used for some task at home (testing, coding...). Why buy a valid controller like areca or (as suggested on a discussion, maybe on reddit) an HBA to make a simple raid? I don't need an HBA or an high value controller on my i7-2600k. Then the consideration should be "if you need high disk I/O perfomances and a lot of space buy the right hardware." For example there are a great number of small offices that need of little nas. There are cheap products that can perform well this operation but these are not valid hardware. I'm not a fan of this solution types but many technician install them because the committent says "oh please, drop the price". If for a small office, a technician must get a 1000/1500 $ for a server to serve as nas, he will not work. I have seen this type of product on lan with 120 hosts with a deadly performances. Il 28/ott/2016 19:15, "Valeri Galtsev" ha scritto: > > On Fri, October 28, 2016 11:50 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > > Il 28/10/2016 16:28, Valeri Galtsev ha scritto: > >> > >> On Fri, October 28, 2016 2:42 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > >>> Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto: > For my personal use I would replace that Drive asap. > - There is no warranty for it anymore (time since buy) > - You can't buy it new anymore (discontinued) > - There are more reliable drives available. > > I'd go for a Samsung Evo 850, that will give you five years of > warranty. > > But, it's your drive, you make the decissions. > > - Yamaban. > >>> > >>> Thank you for your suggestion. > >>> > >>> What do you think about Corsair Neutron XTi 240 MLC? > >>> > >> > >> Amazing. He suggested you definitely reliable drive (Samsung). Reliable > >> in > >> my boot too. You ask his opinion about yet another Corsair. One by > >> Corsair > >> failed on you already. So, you should have better knowledge about > >> Corsair's SSD reliability, right? > >> > >> Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things > >> made > >> by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what > >> creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. > >> > >> Valeri > >> > >> > >> Valeri Galtsev > >> Sr System Administrator > >> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics > >> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics > >> University of Chicago > >> Phone: 773-702-4247 > >> > >> ___ > >> CentOS mailing list > >> CentOS@centos.org > >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >> > > > > Sorry, but my 2 ssds corsair does not report error and works fine, with > > good performances and without realloc. These disks are not failed. Yes, > > they are failing but these are old driver and this is a desktop under > > raid. Consider that these drive are 5 years old, for me this is not bad > > ssd brand, there are best brand but corsair is not too bad. > > > > Now, Yamaban had suggested samsung because this is the best choice. This > > does not exclude that there are other products (that can be less > > reliable and less performant at lower cost) that for my case are good > > enough. Corsair neutron has also 5 years of warrenty. > > > > > Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things > > made > > > by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is > what > > > creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist. > > > > > > > If you are AMD user and your old AMD cpu died, You think that AMD must > > burn due to a cpu failure? Great. > > I'm with you in the case where you buy a disk and after 3/6 months it > > fails (and this can happen also with very good brand) and this is not > > the case. Backblaze must burn all brand because many disks fails > > > > Now about bad hardware manufacturing companies it's another problem. > > These companies point to low cost consumer, due the fact that not anyone > > can get the best hardware due to money. An example? Corsair LE 480 GB > > (100$) vs Samsung SSD Serie 850 Pro 512GB (260$). 850 Pro is better, > > but more expensive, and Corsair LE has 3 year of warrenty. Maybe an user > > can spend his money for a vga or a better cpu. These bad companies > > permit some users to get hw for less money without a great expecation > > for cheapest use case and their ability to pay. > > Yes, indeed, I'm with you on that. Market is driven by low budget > (ignorant - not to offend, but to just qualify in insight into hardware) > consumer. Which indeed leads to "fake raid" chips (aka "software" raid), > and many other bad things. I sometimes have to deal with what students > have ordered themselves. Hence excessive attitude. As they order before > they hear from me: "
Re: [CentOS] Disk near failure
Hi Yamaban,
Great expalanation. I think you know how to buy an ssd. There is no doubt
about samsung ssds quality vs other. My question about neutron was to get
your opinion about this product.
My doubt was about differences between slc, mlc and tlc. Mlc endurance
respect tlc is better and I though that the mlc of neutron gives me more
endurance respect to the tlc. From a technic point of view, why the samsung
tlc is better of corsair mlc? And what about v nand? Have you used it?
Thanks in advances
Il 28/ott/2016 20:33, "Yamaban" ha scritto:
>
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:50, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
>>
>> Il 28/10/2016 16:28, Valeri Galtsev ha scritto:
>>>
>>> On Fri, October 28, 2016 2:42 am, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
>>> > Il 27/10/2016 19:38, Yamaban ha scritto:
>>> > > For my personal use I would replace that Drive asap.
>>> > > - There is no warranty for it anymore (time since buy)
>>> > > - You can't buy it new anymore (discontinued)
>>> > > - There are more reliable drives available.
>>> > > > > I'd go for a Samsung Evo 850, that will give you five years of
> > warranty.
>>> > > > > But, it's your drive, you make the decissions.
>>> > > > > - Yamaban.
>>> > > Thank you for your suggestion.
>>> > > What do you think about Corsair Neutron XTi 240 MLC?
>>> >
>>> Amazing. He suggested you definitely reliable drive (Samsung).
Reliable in
>>> my boot too. You ask his opinion about yet another Corsair. One by
Corsair
>>> failed on you already. So, you should have better knowledge about
>>> Corsair's SSD reliability, right?
>>>
>>> Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things
made
>>> by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what
>>> creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist.
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Sorry, but my 2 ssds corsair does not report error and works fine, with
good performances and without realloc. These disks are not failed. Yes,
they are failing but these are old driver and this is a desktop under raid.
Consider that these drive are 5 years old, for me this is not bad ssd
brand, there are best brand but corsair is not too bad.
>>
>> Now, Yamaban had suggested samsung because this is the best choice. This
does not exclude that there are other products (that can be less reliable
and less performant at lower cost) that for my case are good enough.
Corsair neutron has also 5 years of warrenty.
>>
>>> Sorry to sound sour, it just amuses me how people keep buying things
made
>>> by the same company whose products already failed on them. This is what
>>> creates the problem: keeps companies manufacturing bad hardware exist.
>>>
>>
>> If you are AMD user and your old AMD cpu died, You think that AMD must
burn due to a cpu failure? Great.
>> I'm with you in the case where you buy a disk and after 3/6 months it
fails (and this can happen also with very good brand) and this is not the
case. Backblaze must burn all brand because many disks fails
>>
>> Now about bad hardware manufacturing companies it's another problem.
These companies point to low cost consumer, due the fact that not anyone
can get the best hardware due to money. An example? Corsair LE 480 GB
(100$) vs Samsung SSD Serie 850 Pro 512GB (260$). 850 Pro is better, but
more expensive, and Corsair LE has 3 year of warrenty. Maybe an user can
spend his money for a vga or a better cpu. These bad companies permit some
users to get hw for less money without a great expecation for cheapest use
case and their ability to pay.
>>
>> Than if these cheap companies must not exist, the user must not use a
new technology (at lower cost)? The IT gap.
>>
>> Sorry, my (m.)2 cents.
>
>
> I'm VERY unsure how to answer on "The Question" of what SSD to buy.
> Religious wars have been fought over less.
>
> So, I'll give a intro on how I select a product for myself, and a view
> into how I personally priorise specification requirements.
>
> - Reliability. A "new" Technology (e.g. SLC -> MLC -> TLC) has to be on
> the market for at least a year as a 3-5 year warranty customer product,
> or at least 3 month on the market as a 5-10 year warranty datacenter
one.
>
> - Thrustworthyness. How does the manufacturer handle a product gaffe?
> * Denial, delay, FUD -> drop that manufacturer, not worthy at all.
> * Acceptance of proof, offer of upwards replacement -> good, keep.
>
> - Openness on product specification.
> Full specs should be available on manufacturer web site at no cost.
> Proof of specs by testing of not-paid-for-it Third party? Good!
>
>
> In your case, be very thankfull that you got 5 years out of the disks,
> not may got that.
>
> After some datalosses due to sudden drive failure, I'm replaceing my
> drives after ca 3 years at similar runtime ("on"-time hours), and that
> is why I encurage you to replace your drive. Not to drive the economy.
>
> In the past "Corsair" was a power enthusiast product, and the time-cycle
> for those "enthusiast" was 2 to
Re: [CentOS] Disk near failure
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:03, Alessandro Baggi wrote: Hi Yamaban, Great expalanation. I think you know how to buy an ssd. There is no doubt about samsung ssds quality vs other. My question about neutron was to get your opinion about this product. My doubt was about differences between slc, mlc and tlc. Mlc endurance respect tlc is better and I though that the mlc of neutron gives me more endurance respect to the tlc. From a technic point of view, why the samsung tlc is better of corsair mlc? And what about v nand? Have you used it? Thanks in advances [snip] Hi Alessandro, For the clear picture, if I'm talking about "Corsair SSD" I mean the "Corsair Neutron XTi", because the "Corsair Force LE" is pretty much a no-go for anyone that has to rely on the data stored for more than 3 years at a work load of 9 hours per day / 5 days a week / 50 weeks a year (ca 2250 hours per year) at ca 8TBW written per year. I'm not take these numbers out of the air, but that is what an normal office PC is based on. Those 8TBW per year come from observation on Microsoft Windows 10 Profesional and latest Microsoft Office Professional and include nearly half system / half user caused writes on average per year. Those Microsoft updates and shadow-copies are much more heavy than most people thought. Thankfully most Linux-Distros cause a much lighter system part of the Write load of the drive than Windows, but COW based file-systems like btrfs are on the uptake and that will rise the write load. Now, on Flash Technology. Hmm. I've started on that with UV-Erasible E-Prom in 1987 (100 Erase cycles), went on with EE-Prom (over 10.000 Erase cycles!, but only 10 years data retention), and near 1990 Flash-EEProm (Block-wise erasible) became available at prices a student could pay from his/her spending money The writes on early Flash where painfully slow, about 1% of the read-speed, at the beginning. the more wide-spread usage (in digital still-cameras and mobile phones) brought a (slow) change to more write speed, but at what cost? Data Retention Time! [... long rant removed, its late in the (not so pleasan)t day ...] On the difference of nand and v-nand: "normal" nand uses "floating gate" while v-nand aka "vertical-nand" uses a "charge trap" (capacitor) to store the bit information. The Wikipedia article on Flash gives some more indepth info: Flash : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory MLC/TLC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell Conclusion: a well produced (first class / datacenter class) TLC Nand is very similar to a middle class MLC V-Nand, both in terms of access speed and write endurance. But the MLC will be at least 10% bigger on the die. ATM, it is a cost balance between a lower yield on high quality smaller TLC, and higher yield middle class bigger MLC So, for the End user wheter "MLC V-nand" or "TLC nand" is much less interresting than the question of "how well does the manufacturer understand the used flash and how well was the controller adapted to it" Corsair as a SSD manufacturer buys both, the flash, and the controller, from other manufacturers, while Samsung does it completely in-house. Thus it is not surprising that Corsair does still use the MLC technology while Samsung has already made the step to TLC. I see that as a unspoken statement from Corsair that "we do not have to knowlegde avaliable (atm.) to make a TLC drive of the same quality than a MLC one." That is not negative in any way. A manufacturer that knows his limits is much better than one that jumps on a new hype with to little knowlegde. Samsung is very careful about its promises on write endurance. TLC is still a young technology and that shows in lower TBW, so the warranty says for the "Evo" says: "5 years or TBW per spec, what ever is reached first". That's honesty in my eyes. If the question would be the "Samsung 850 EVO" with MLC Flash from last year, or the new "Corsair Neutron XTi" there would be little to no difference in TBW, but the price of the Samsung was ca 10% higher. IIRC, the TBW spec from you old 120GiB Corsair was below 10TBW, and you are nearly on the 7TBW mark after 5 years, even the 75TBW of the 250GiB Samsung should hold out for the next 5 years. My baseline is: wether the "Samsung 850 EVO" with TLC or the "Corsair Neutron XTi" with MLC, is more a matter of gut-feeling than anything else. As you will not buy the SSD in packs of 20 or more you never get into any discount scheme, so that offer from Samsung will also not matter in any way, and at the point where you buy it, the price per GiB will be nearly equal. Both offer 5 years warranty. Have a nice weekend - Yamaban ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
