On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 07:59:52PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/17/24 00:35, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:12:06PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> > > On 2/15/24 17:44, gene heskett wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > Other than that the gui access delay (30+
On 2/17/24 00:47, gene heskett wrote:
On 2/16/24 21:13, Andy Smith wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 02:02:59PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
On Fri 16 Feb 2024 at 14:48:12 (+), Andy Smith wrote:
No, because it's a filesystem label for the ext4 fs created on
/dev/sdz1. If sdz1 is turned
On 2/17/24 00:35, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:12:06PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
On 2/15/24 17:44, gene heskett wrote:
[...]
Other than that the gui access delay (30+ seconds) problems I have did
NOT go away when I moved /home off the raid to another SSD [...]
gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/16/24 15:47, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>> One of the 1T samsungs in the md raid10 isn't entirely happy but
> >>> mdadm has not fussed about it, and smartctl seems to say its ok
> >>> after testing. Other than that the gui access delay (30+ seconds)
> >>> problems I have
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 12:46:25AM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
[38 lines of irrelevance snipped out of a 71 line email]
> I've printed drawers to fill those slots. The top slot has a bpi-m5 in it,
> the bottom slot has a 5 volt 10 amp psu in it. slot 2 will have 2 of those
> nearly 4T SSD's
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 01:32:29AM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 12:47 AM gene heskett wrote:
[...]
> > That part if the ^%$ drives ever get here, I just looked at the front
> > deck and it has 2" of fresh white stuff on it.
>
> Lol... More irrelevant chatter [...]
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 12:47 AM gene heskett wrote:
>
> On 2/16/24 21:13, Andy Smith wrote:
> > [...]
> > Sure, but we still don't know what Gene is trying to do or why
> > partition names would be useful to him so I am kind of sceptical
> > that this leads anywhere.
> >
> That part if the ^%$
On 2/16/24 21:13, Andy Smith wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 02:02:59PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
On Fri 16 Feb 2024 at 14:48:12 (+), Andy Smith wrote:
No, because it's a filesystem label for the ext4 fs created on
/dev/sdz1. If sdz1 is turned into an LVM Physical Volume, there
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:46:54PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
[...]
> FWIW, my crystal ball says "30s => software timeout rather than hardware
> problem"
and whithin that, a network thingy. Ah, were it 90s, it'd be a DNS thingy.
But 30s...
Cheers
--
t
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:12:06PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> On 2/15/24 17:44, gene heskett wrote:
[...]
> > Other than that the gui access delay (30+ seconds) problems I have did
> > NOT go away when I moved /home off the raid to another SSD [...]
I think at this point few are
On Sat 17 Feb 2024 at 02:12:49 (+), Andy Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 02:02:59PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > … which would be moot if only Gene could create partition PARTLABELs
> > successfully.
>
> Sure, but we still don't know what Gene is trying to do or why
> partition names
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:46:54PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> FWIW, my crystal ball says "30s => software timeout rather than hardware
> problem"
Back in a previous thread Gene was saying that it's only evident
when some GUI app brings up a file requester to load or save
something so
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 02:02:59PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 16 Feb 2024 at 14:48:12 (+), Andy Smith wrote:
> > No, because it's a filesystem label for the ext4 fs created on
> > /dev/sdz1. If sdz1 is turned into an LVM Physical Volume, there
> > won't be an ext4 filesystem
On 2/16/24 15:47, Stefan Monnier wrote:
One of the 1T samsungs in the md raid10 isn't entirely happy but mdadm has
not fussed about it, and smartctl seems to say its ok after testing.
Other than that the gui access delay (30+ seconds) problems I have did
NOT go away when I moved /home off the
On 2/16/24 12:46, Stefan Monnier wrote:
One of the 1T samsungs in the md raid10 isn't entirely happy but mdadm has
not fussed about it, and smartctl seems to say its ok after testing.
Other than that the gui access delay (30+ seconds) problems I have did
NOT go away when I moved /home off the
>> One of the 1T samsungs in the md raid10 isn't entirely happy but mdadm has
>> not fussed about it, and smartctl seems to say its ok after testing.
>> Other than that the gui access delay (30+ seconds) problems I have did
>> NOT go away when I moved /home off the raid to another SSD, so I may
On 2/15/24 22:16, gene heskett wrote:
I want to know with absolute certainty, with of the 4 drives in that
raid10, actually has a belly ache. When it has a belly ache. I can't see
any reason on this ball of rock and water, why I should be expected to
replace a drive at a time until the belly
On 2/15/24 17:44, gene heskett wrote:
One of the 1T samsungs in the md raid10 isn't entirely happy but mdadm
has not fussed about it, and smartctl seems to say its ok after testing.
Other than that the gui access delay (30+ seconds) problems I have did
NOT go away when I moved /home off the
On Fri 16 Feb 2024 at 11:59:40 (-0800), David Christensen wrote:
> On 2/15/24 12:59, gene heskett wrote:
> > ... gigastones, I 5 of them but when all
> > are plugged in there are only 3 becauae there are 2 pairs of
> > matching serial numbers ...
>
> I recall 2 pairs of SSD's with matching
On Fri 16 Feb 2024 at 14:48:12 (+), Andy Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 01:32:26AM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> > On 2/15/24 16:20, David Wright wrote:
> > ># gdisk -l /dev/sdz
> > >GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.3
> > >
> > >Partition table scan:
> > > MBR: protective
On Fri 16 Feb 2024 at 01:32:26 (-0500), gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/15/24 16:20, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 15 Feb 2024 at 20:44:52 (+), Andy Smith wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:19:54PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> > > > On 2/15/24 11:21, Andy Smith wrote:
> > > > > You asked if
On 2/15/24 12:59, gene heskett wrote:
... gigastones, I 5 of them but when all
are plugged in there are only 3 becauae there are 2 pairs of matching
serial numbers ...
I recall 2 pairs of SSD's with matching serial numbers. Please remove
one SSD of each pair so that the remaining SSD's
On 2/15/24 12:19, gene heskett wrote:
On 2/15/24 11:21, Andy Smith wrote:
... redundancy plans ...
Like which version of a raid is the best at tolerating a failed drive,
which give he best balance between redundancy and capacity.
Given a small number of disks, N (say, 4 to 8), the obvious
On 2/16/24 07:46, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
gene heskett wrote:
On 2/15/24 15:45, Andy Smith wrote:
MD RAID isn't the only way to achieve redundancy. You also haven't
explained why you need LVM. Depending on your needs, maybe a
filesystem with redundancy and volume management
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:44:26PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/15/24 15:45, Andy Smith wrote:
> > MD RAID isn't the only way to achieve redundancy. You also haven't
> > explained why you need LVM. Depending on your needs, maybe a
> > filesystem with redundancy and volume management
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 01:32:26AM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/15/24 16:20, David Wright wrote:
> ># gdisk -l /dev/sdz
> >GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.3
> >
> >Partition table scan:
> > MBR: protective
> > BSD: not present
> > APM: not present
> > GPT:
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 01:16:59AM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/15/24 16:20, Andy Smith wrote:
> > Suppose you have the MD array /dev/md42. What are you conceptually
> > wanting to do with that in relation to labels of some kind? What
> > information is it that you want?
> >
> >
gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/15/24 15:45, Andy Smith wrote:
>
> > MD RAID isn't the only way to achieve redundancy. You also haven't
> > explained why you need LVM. Depending on your needs, maybe a
> > filesystem with redundancy and volume management features in it
> > would be better. Like btrfs
Stefan Monnier writes:
> - Use an additional tiny dummy partition in which you can put any info
> you like.
This seems to be what Microsoft likes to do. At least I had the pleasure
of tossing a "Microsoft reserved" partition out from my desktop
recently, I think the Windows 10 installer
On 2/15/24 16:20, David Wright wrote:
On Thu 15 Feb 2024 at 20:44:52 (+), Andy Smith wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:19:54PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
On 2/15/24 11:21, Andy Smith wrote:
You asked if "labels" would survive their associated partition being
put into LVM.
I said, "yes if
On 2/15/24 16:20, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:59:30PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
Now the question remains howinhell do I put a label on a drive
such that it does survive making a raid or lvm device with it? To
not have a way to id its the drive in slot n of a multislot
On 2/15/24 15:45, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:19:54PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
On 2/15/24 11:21, Andy Smith wrote:
You asked if "labels" would survive their associated partition being
put into LVM.
I said, "yes if you mean partition names, no if you mean filesystem
> Now the question remains howinhell do I put a label on a drive such
> that it does survive making a raid or lvm device with it?
LVM/MD take control of a block device (usually a partition), so any info
in that block device can't be used for your purpose. IOW you have to
put the info somewhere
On 2/15/24 15:45, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:19:54PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
On 2/15/24 11:21, Andy Smith wrote:
You asked if "labels" would survive their associated partition being
put into LVM.
I said, "yes if you mean partition names, no if you mean filesystem
On Thu 15 Feb 2024 at 20:44:52 (+), Andy Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:19:54PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> > On 2/15/24 11:21, Andy Smith wrote:
> > > You asked if "labels" would survive their associated partition being
> > > put into LVM.
> > >
> > > I said, "yes if you mean
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:59:30PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> Now the question remains howinhell do I put a label on a drive
> such that it does survive making a raid or lvm device with it? To
> not have a way to id its the drive in slot n of a multislot rack
> stops me in my tracks.
Given
On 2/15/24 14:41, Andy Smith wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 05:32:34PM +, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
Andy Smith wrote:
Do remember that this mailing lists does not accept attachments (and
very few mailing lists in general do), so any time you are tempted
to send a photo to
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:19:54PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/15/24 11:21, Andy Smith wrote:
> > You asked if "labels" would survive their associated partition being
> > put into LVM.
> >
> > I said, "yes if you mean partition names, no if you mean filesystem
> > labels".
> >
> I'm
On 2/15/24 11:21, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:56:07PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
I hope you are putting a level of redundancy under that LVM or are
using the redundancy features of LVM (which you need to go out of
your way to do).
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 05:32:34PM +, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> Andy Smith wrote:
> > Do remember that this mailing lists does not accept attachments (and
> > very few mailing lists in general do), so any time you are tempted
> > to send a photo to a mailing list it is
Andy Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:48:31PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> > On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
> > > Please show us the command you used¹ to do that, so we know what
> > > exactly you are talking about, because as previously discussed
> > > there's a lot of different
On Thu 15 Feb 2024 at 16:12:06 (+), Andy Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:56:07PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> > > On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
> > > > I hope you are putting a level of redundancy under that LVM or are
> > > > using the redundancy features of LVM (which you
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:56:07PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> > On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
> > > I hope you are putting a level of redundancy under that LVM or are
> > > using the redundancy features of LVM (which you need to go out of
> > > your way to do). Otherwise by default
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:48:31PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:09:02PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> > > I have made 1 full partiton om each one, a labeled those partitions as
> > > SiPwr_0 and SiPwr_1
> >
> > Please show us
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:06:43PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
> > But your chosen partition names don't make a lot of sense to me.
> > You've picked names based on the type/manufacturer of device so you
> > may as well have just used the names from
On 2/14/24 21:14, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 15/02/2024 08:48, gene heskett wrote:
This is what gparted calls a "partition label" and certainly does not
need a 4.5 megabyte camera image to see. or even a 50k screen snap.
lsblk --fs -o +PARTLABEL /dev/sdc
NAME FSTYPE FSVER LABEL UUID
On 2/14/24 20:49, gene heskett wrote:
On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:09:02PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
I have made 1 full partiton om each one, a labeled those partitions as
SiPwr_0 and SiPwr_1
Please show us the command you used¹ to do that, so we know
On 2/14/24 18:06, gene heskett wrote:
Will the by-id string fit in the space reserved for a label?That IF
there was a connection between the /dev/sdc that udev assigns and
anything in this list:
root@coyote:~# ls /dev/disk/by-id
ata-ATAPI_iHAS424_B_3524253_327133504865
On 15/02/2024 08:48, gene heskett wrote:
This is what gparted calls a "partition label" and certainly does not
need a 4.5 megabyte camera image to see. or even a 50k screen snap.
lsblk --fs -o +PARTLABEL /dev/sdc
On 2/14/24 17:48, gene heskett wrote:
On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:09:02PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
I have made 1 full partiton om each one, a labeled those partitions as
SiPwr_0 and SiPwr_1
Please show us the command you used¹ to do that, so we know what
On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:09:02PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
I have made 1 full partiton om each one, a labeled those partitions as
SiPwr_0 and SiPwr_1
Please show us the command you used¹ to do that, so we know what
exactly you are talking about,
On 2/14/24 19:48, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:09:02PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
I have made 1 full partiton om each one, a labeled those partitions as
SiPwr_0 and SiPwr_1
Please show us the command you used¹ to do that, so we know what
exactly you are talking about,
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:09:02PM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
> I have made 1 full partiton om each one, a labeled those partitions as
> SiPwr_0 and SiPwr_1
Please show us the command you used¹ to do that, so we know what
exactly you are talking about, because as previously discussed
Drive is plugged into amobo usb-3 port via a startech USB3S2SAT3CB
ADAPTER CABLE.
f3probe took over 16 seconds, but says it the real thing:
root@coyote:~# f3probe /dev/sdc
F3 probe 8.0
Copyright (C) 2010 Digirati Internet LTDA.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
54 matches
Mail list logo
