Hey guys, new to the list. Concerning this load_cycle_count issue, we should recall that applying hdparm -B 255 (254) /dev/sdx has more consequences that the user should, at least, be made aware of. As I'm sure you are all aware: completely disabeling the feature will cause increased heat production and power consumption for one, but most importantly: It increases the chance that the drive is damaged if the mobile device is moved during operation! Perhaps this sort of action should be left to the user, and an applet or deamon should be written that monitors the spin cycle count through S.M.A.R.T. and informs the user if it is increasing at an alarming rate in a more graphical or direct way. The user him/herself can then decide what to do. Is storage-fixup's -d an option for this? yes, it's a serious issue and yes the users should be aware. But should the system itself decide to take this action or should we simply inform and let the user decide. I lean towards the latter myself. 2009/10/19 Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Anyone else has some opinion about how to handle this? > > > > I'd like to affirm the opinions of Roman and Xavier and take some action > on > > this. > > > > Anyone object to my putting storage-fixup in [extra] at least? If no > > objections by W 9/21, I plan to go ahead with that step. If it works out, > we > > can talk about follow-up steps like: > > > > 1) moving it to [core] > > 2) integrating it into default rc.d scripts > > > > It's a pretty serious issue for laptop users with affected drives. And > the > > drives are pretty popular ones, methinks. > > Also note that, when raising awerness about this issue, the fixup > ussually needs to be run on resume from disk (and I think resume from > ram) too. Not only on boot. > > > -- > damjan > -- msn: stefan_wilkens@xxxxxxxxxxx e-mail: stefanwilkens@xxxxxxxxx blog: http://www.stefanwilkens.eu/ adres: Lipperkerkstraat 14 7511 DA Enschede
