carmen wrote:
On Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:00:05PM -0400, Dan
Easley wrote:
> On 7/6/06, Pieter Palmers <pieterp(a)joow.be> wrote:
>> Paul Winkler wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 01:43:40PM +0200, Pieter Palmers wrote:
>>>> Modern harddisks use a lot of write caching on the controller to
achieve
>>>> decent performance. So when power
goes down when there is data in the
>>>> write cache, it is lost. The file system however 'thinks' that
data
has
>> been written correctly. This hence results in
file system corruption.
Thanks much for this whole thread. It's added
substance to what I
previously thought was just personal paranoia and suspicion.
I've been under the impression it's cheaper to buy used UPS's and buy
replacement batteries for them. Has anyone done this to good results?
im guessing 2 drives , synched nightly via rsync, or in a RAID
configuration, is
cheaper, and friendlier for the environment than
huge/heavy UPS batteries. i guess i'd invest in that if the electricity
infrastructure in my area was particularly bad. or in combination with
daytime solar replenishing to run completely off-grid.
The RAID does *not* help against power
failures. been there, done that.
rsync will do, but then you have to make sure that the outage does not
occur when running rsync. Anyway it lowers the chance that you'll have
problems.
soudns like overkill as a hedge against drive
failure though. drives will
fail.
UPS'es don't prevent mechanical drive failure, but they do prevent
'soft' bad sectors. My belief is that these are the most common.
I wouldn't think a 100€ UPS is more overkill than an extra 160G drive
(costing about the same) for RAID/rsync mirroring.
I've made up my mind about this: 'this UPS is to stay', but feel free
not to agree of course ;)
Pieter
100 euro! for 160G ouch! my 300 gb 16 mb cache sata2 drive was much
less than that! I don't really have anything that vitial that loosing
it would really suck... guess if i ever make some decent recordings...
Otherwise it all makes sense ;)