I began my first job ever working at a computer repair shop not soon after
those drives first hit the market and I recall them being pretty dodgy. I
replaced many Bigfoot drives when I was in high school! They were also dog
slow ... 3600 RPM, I think ...
The quality got better as time went on, if
> From: Sean Caron
> the worst thing on the market since the old Quantum Bigfoot
Just out of curiousity, what was so bad about the Bigfoot?
Noel
On 09/25/2015 07:04 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 06:55:02PM -0400, Sean Caron wrote:
since the old Quantum Bigfoot
There's no need to swear :-)
I know it's strange, but I still have a couple of systems that
occasionally get used for some legacy bit of hardware or another
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 06:55:02PM -0400, Sean Caron wrote:
> since the old Quantum Bigfoot
There's no need to swear :-)
mcl
Er, sorry, HDAs, not HBAs :O
Best,
Sean
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Sean Caron wrote:
> The WDC REs are not bad drives at all but IMO Hitachi Ultrastar is the
> best line going right now. I have been working with them for some time from
> 0.5T through 3T under very high duty cycle and the
The WDC REs are not bad drives at all but IMO Hitachi Ultrastar is the best
line going right now. I have been working with them for some time from 0.5T
through 3T under very high duty cycle and they are fairly bulletproof. The
REs will do the work, but I have seen higher failure rates on them right
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 06:31:46PM -0600, ben wrote:
> On 9/24/2015 6:16 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
>
> >Word on the street is stay away from WD for the near future. They've had
> >massive
> >QC problems.
> >
> I wonder what is happening in the clouds?
They pay very close attention and are _very_ picky
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:33:59PM -0700, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 09/24/2015 04:30 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
>
> >IMHO, you want to buy at one generation below the current max
> >capacity on the assumption that they ironed out the bugs on that
> >one.
>
> So, if you were to move up from the
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/24/2015 04:30 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
IMHO, you want to buy at one generation below the current max
capacity on the assumption that they ironed out the bugs on that
one.
So, if you were to move up from the 500GB SATA drives to the "next
g
On 09/24/2015 04:30 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
IMHO, you want to buy at one generation below the current max
capacity on the assumption that they ironed out the bugs on that
one.
So, if you were to move up from the 500GB SATA drives to the "next
generation", which would you choose?
--Ch
On 9/24/15 5:45 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
Backblaze is the closest you will ever hear a peep from,
any they are teeny beany in terms of buying drives.
Thinking about it, Jason/IA could say something wrt drive
reliability. They are running similar chassis to us (24/36
drive Supermicros) just a LO
On 9/24/15 5:31 PM, ben wrote:
I wonder what is happening in the clouds?
Mere mortals will never know.
Backblaze is the closest you will ever hear a peep from,
any they are teeny beany in terms of buying drives.
On 9/24/2015 6:16 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
Word on the street is stay away from WD for the near future. They've had
massive
QC problems.
I wonder what is happening in the clouds?
Ben.
On 9/24/15 4:30 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Google for the Blackblaze reports.
Backblaze
Up until now, I've confined my purchasing to 500GB drives on the
hope that they're more reliable than the 3-5TB monsters. Is this a
mistake?
1tb was the transition to vertical recording. They had the tech down by 2tb.
Seagate 1 and 1.5s are utter crap. I had a dozen 1.5s that NEVER worked.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 01:02:03PM -0700, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 12:32 PM, et...@757.org wrote:
> >>Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you,
> >>certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but
> >>only a few), but I know graphic designers and phot
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:32:27PM -0400, et...@757.org wrote:
> >Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you,
> >certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but only a
> >few), but I know graphic designers and photographers who have probably
> >produced at least
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:19:27PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> > I think a more important issue in backing up is "How many GENERATIONS
> > to you keep around?"
>
> For many purposes, that's an important consideration, yes. There's
> something (small) I back up weekly for which I keep the most recent
>
On 2015-09-24 01:15, Antonio Carlini wrote:
On 21/09/15 14:15, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: tony duell
> In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code
program
> that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton
sets.
I have this bit set that I was told
On 21/09/15 01:55, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I used the above example when I created a CD which had files to be used
with RT-11 in addition to being a normal CD under Windows. I found that
for a normal CD under Windows, sectors 0 to 15 (hard disk blocks 0 to 63)
on the CD were empty. I don't know
On 21/09/15 14:15, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: tony duell
> In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program
> that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets.
I have this bit set that I was told (or something, the memory is _very_
vague) t
On 2015-09-21 23:32, David Brownlee wrote:
On 21 September 2015 at 01:55, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote:
Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would
be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on grea
On 21 September 2015 at 01:55, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>Fred Cisin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote:
>>
>>> Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would
>>> be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on greatly
>>> differing OS's like Linux
On 2015-09-21 15:15, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: tony duell
> In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program
> that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets.
I have this bit set that I was told (or something, the memory is _very_
vague)
> On Sep 20, 2015, at 8:55 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>
>> ...
>
> I used the above example when I created a CD which had files to be used
> with RT-11 in addition to being a normal CD under Windows. I found that
> for a normal CD under Windows, sectors 0 to 15 (hard disk blocks 0 to 63)
> on t
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:15:13AM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: tony duell
>
> > In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program
> > that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets.
>
> I have this bit set that I was told (or something,
> From: tony duell
> In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program
> that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets.
I have this bit set that I was told (or something, the memory is _very_
vague) that early versions of the KL-10 had this hac
>Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote:
Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it
would be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on
greatly differing OS's like Linux AND Windows. No telling what would
happen if one of these disk vir
>> I would guess it would be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus
>> that would work on greatly differing OS's like Linux AND Windows.
This is actually a good reason to encrypt your whole disk. The disk
can't serve up working malware if the bits it returns get mangled by
decryption with an unkn
> It is possible to create an executable file that identifies the OS that it
> is running on and does a conditional jump to different code, assuming that
> the processor uses the same instruction set.
In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program that
executes
on 2 processo
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote:
Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would be
incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on greatly differing
OS's like Linux AND Windows. No telling what would happen if one of these
disk viruses got onto a hard d
On 9/20/2015 11:53 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
On 09/19/2015 10:58 PM, John Foust wrote:
The other recent development that makes me want to quit? Someone's
demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives.
https://blog.kaspersky.com/equation-hdd-malware/7623/ - John
Well, one would assume this
On 09/19/2015 10:58 PM, John Foust wrote:
The other recent development that makes me want to quit?
Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of
hard drives.
https://blog.kaspersky.com/equation-hdd-malware/7623/ - John
Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would
guess i
At 05:57 AM 9/20/2015, Liam Proven wrote:
>On 20 September 2015 at 05:58, John Foust wrote:
>> Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives.
>
>And access the hypervisor layer of an OS in various ways from programs
>executing inside a VM.
Yeah, that too. The easy recombinat
On 20 September 2015 at 05:58, John Foust wrote:
> Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives.
And access the hypervisor layer of an OS in various ways from programs
executing inside a VM.
So, for instance, much malware self-inactivates if it detects that
it's running ins
At 09:55 AM 9/18/2015, Fred Cisin wrote:
>CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor AVG
>see it. "Well, it's not a VIRUS, . . ."
Yes and no. The bad guys work very hard to evade detection.
They're always developing new wrappers to deliver the old payloads.
The o
On 18 September 2015 at 19:10, Dave G4UGM wrote:
> But you do use a browser and all of those have holes...
True, but they do on any OS. There are far fewer 'sploits for OS X or
for Linux than for Windows (e.g. the famed WMF decoder one) -- andf by
avoiding IE or anything that embeds or wraps
On 09/18/2015 09:49 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Liam Proven wrote:
However, Cryptolocker et al spread by fooling users into running
something they shouldn't run. I'm sorry, but you got suckered.
Absolutely. I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to
update Flash Playe
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Liam
> Proven
> Sent: 18 September 2015 17:47
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
>
> On 18 Septembe
On 18 September 2015 at 18:49, Fred Cisin wrote:
> Absolutely.
> I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to update Flash Player"
> or maybe "Java update"
I can see how one of those, done well, might fool most of us. I am not
one of those daredevil ascetics who runs Windows without anti
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Liam Proven wrote:
However, Cryptolocker et al spread by fooling users into running
something they shouldn't run. I'm sorry, but you got suckered.
Absolutely.
I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to update Flash Player"
or maybe "Java update"
But, I never got
On 18 September 2015 at 18:25, Dave G4UGM wrote:
> Are you 100 % sure you don't need anti-malware...
>
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/05/apple-to-patch-actively-exploited-privilege-escalation-bug-in-os-x-10105---report
>
> from what I have seen the fix from Apple isn't a fix...
>
> http:
Of Liam
> Proven
> Sent: 18 September 2015 17:17
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
>
> On 18 September 2015 at 16:55, Fred Cisin wrote:
> > CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think
On 18 September 2015 at 16:55, Fred Cisin wrote:
> CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor AVG
> see it. "Well, it's not a VIRUS, . . ."
Former AVG employee here. I quit; this is not an official statement.
CryptoLocker/CryptoWall/etc are *not* a single program.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, John Foust wrote:
As to why your antivirus didn't see it... there's always a few days
before the latest infection mechanisms are documented and added to
the AV updates.
CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor
AVG see it. "Well, it's not a V
At 01:01 PM 9/16/2015, Fred Cisin wrote:
>But, those still require a gullibility error on the part of the user, don't
>they? Do the ads actually load and run the ransomware, or just present the
>fraudulent upgrade offer to bring it in?
The bad guys are slipping silent-install vulnerability expl
>> Thus, defense in depth:
>> [...]
>> (3) Test-restore from your backups periodically.
> As for (3), I don't understand how a test-restore would help.
The theory is, if the restore restores good contents then the backup
contains good contents.
> Even if the files have been encrypted, I don't un
>Mouse wrote:
There is a ramsomware variant that encrypts the files but silently decrypts $
This depends on the backup-taking accessing the files in a way that
doesn't trip the decryption.
It also depends on nobody test-restoring from the backups, or at least
not sanity-checking the resu
/2015 11:54 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
On 09/16/2015 11:20 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
> On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote:
>
>> We have 10 years of backups.ed#
>>
> ever verified
worry about but also the news service stuff we
do.Ed# www.smecc.orgSent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Original message
From: Al Kossow
Date: 09/16/2015 11:20 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
On 9/16
On 09/16/2015 11:20 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote:
We have 10 years of backups.ed#
ever verified them?
Mine go back to sometime around 1980. I have customer records that go
back to 1987. Curiously, we got a note from a fellow needing an update
to CopyQM. He
> There is a ramsomware variant that encrypts the files but silently decrypts $
This depends on the backup-taking accessing the files in a way that
doesn't trip the decryption.
It also depends on nobody test-restoring from the backups, or at least
not sanity-checking the results if they do.
It a
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
> ...
> Neither AVG (resident), nor McAfee (manually run weekly) detected my
> infection of Cryptowall. What WILL detect it?
Linux? :-)
paul
On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote:
We have 10 years of backups.ed#
ever verified them?
We have 10 years of backups.ed#
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Original message
From: Robert Feldman
Date: 09/16/2015 10:40 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
>From: Mouse
>
>> I
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Robert Feldman wrote:
There is a ramsomware variant that encrypts the files but silently
decrypts them when they are accessed. It does this for six months before
deactivating the on-demand decryption and displaying the ransom message,
the theory being that by that time all
>From: Mouse
>
>> I think a more important issue in backing up is "How many GENERATIONS
> >to you keep around?"
>
>For many purposes, that's an important consideration, yes. There's
>something (small) I back up weekly for which I keep the most recent
>seven backups, the oldest backup in each of t
I ride herd on maybe three or four thousand Hitachi Ultrastar A7K{2,3,4}000
2 TB and 3 TB disks and they take a real pounding with the workload here
and they have just been fantastic ... great drives; very solid ... Also
used the WDC RE4 when Thailand got flooded out a few years ago and we were
in
> In the case of spinning rust, what brand is most reliable? I've seen
> dreadful reports of DOA drives from Western Digital, fewer from
> Seagate,
> but I don't know about Hitachi, Samsung, etc.
Caveat: my experience is as a home "power user"
In my experience it all depends: I have a set of Sea
On 9/15/15 1:02 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
In the case of spinning rust, what brand is most reliable? I've seen dreadful
reports of DOA drives from Western Digital, fewer from Seagate, but I don't
know about Hitachi, Samsung, etc.
CHM has been having good luck with 3 and 4tb (mostly) Hitachi a
On 09/15/2015 12:32 PM, et...@757.org wrote:
Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you,
certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but
only a few), but I know graphic designers and photographers who
have probably produced at least a gigabyte of original pict
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Thomas Kula wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:32:27PM -0400, et...@757.org wrote:
> >
> > I would cut multiple tapes of anything you care about!
> >
>
> It's not simply enough to cut multiple tapes (backups) of anything you
> care about --- you must periodically
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:32:27PM -0400, et...@757.org wrote:
>
> I would cut multiple tapes of anything you care about!
>
It's not simply enough to cut multiple tapes (backups) of anything you
care about --- you must periodically *read* and *verify* those tapes
(backups), so that you can re-co
Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you,
certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but only a
few), but I know graphic designers and photographers who have probably
produced at least a gigabyte of original pictures each by now. And
people into video produ
> I think a more important issue in backing up is "How many GENERATIONS
> to you keep around?"
For many purposes, that's an important consideration, yes. There's
something (small) I back up weekly for which I keep the most recent
seven backups, the oldest backup in each of the most recent twelve
65 matches
Mail list logo
