On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:04 -0700, John Reiser wrote: > How old is the drive? That model number says 3-platter, 320MB, SATA. > If it's three or more years old, then just replace it. A new drive > is $90 or less in US, and 500GB is available for the same price > and same other specs (size, power, heat, performance, ...). > The data is worth far more than that. Dunno about that attitude being universal. On my workstations I use NFS homes so there is no data, only code. I depend on SMART being right enough so I can usually yank a failing drive before it goes so bad the worker can't login and use the machine. But I could care less about any data on it, it is only a clone; because NFS root is just too much of a performance hit compared to the cheapness of drives these days. I try to keep one spare workstation ready to drop in place of a failed unit so downtime is minimal no matter what manages to go wrong with one. Because a failure isn't a big deal and SMART is usually pretty good about giving an advance warning I run em until they die. In fact if the failure is just a few bad blocks I often zero the drive (or run the manufacturer's low level tool) and if the SMART warning goes away I put it back in service and usually get a few more years out of em. My average drive age is easily over five years on workstations. Still have quite a few 40GB IDE drives in service. A 500GB drive might be dirt cheap now but a fairly complete Linux install still fits on a 40GB drive so why throw out perfectly servicable equip? If your data is worth anything it shouldn't be subject to loss of a drive regardless of age. I. THOU SHALT MAKE BACKUPS II. THOU SHALT KEEP THY BACKUPS CURRENT III. THOU SHALT VERIFY THY BACKUPS
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
