Volker Kuhlmann wrote, On 25/02/15 00:05: > On Tue 24 Feb 2015 20:51:38 NZDT +1300, C. Falconer wrote: >> But my TV drive is reporting imminent fail, so I'm going to deal to >> that. Comments? > Copying off asap is a wise move. But using NFS for that?!?? Why not? It was one way to get the full 3TB visible while not powering off the existing server. I didn't want to power down the failing disks because they're still running, and might not come back.
The point of my post was about NFS and mounts lower down the tree not working as I expected. > USB<->SATA bridges and SATA chipsets may all have a max size for the disk you > can connect to them, probably especially the USB stuff. For > this kind of exercise (copying 3TB around) USB doesn't cut the mustard (too > slow, too much trouble) and a direct SATA connection is desirable. > Don't you have any computer with a spare SATA slot that can handle 3TB? You > don't even have to power that computer down, just connect SATA data > cable and power the disk somehow. If the SATA chipset is properly supported > under Linux a hotplug event will make the disk available soon > after. I've done it several times. (No, do not hotplug other stuff on the > mobo, like plug-in cards...) > > rsync is the way to go for copying (though it may truncate time stamps to > full seconds), but more like over TCP or ssh, not NFS?!?? I had SATA drive in one machine, NFS over gig ethernet to another machine, and SATA to the disk. Worked well enough and was done by morning. There is no USB used (because it didn't show the full space, which lead to using a second machine) I could have used rsync over ssh, no reason to choose one over the other. I'll synch the other drive using rsync over ssh to see if there's any noticeable difference. -- Criggie _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canterbury.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
