Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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+ 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 surprised by that. Last round of debugging > > we pretty much eliminated disk access as likey cause of those delays. > > > > The most hopeful cause for a candidate, IIRC, was some thingy deep in the DE > > trying to access an unavailable resource. > > > > Cheers > Is there some way to identify that roadblock? > > It sure seems to me there ought to be a way to identify whatever it is that > is causing it.. No single path, alas. The most pin-pointed description we have is some editor blocking while trying to "open a file" (whatever those gooey thingies do in that situation). So perhaps stracing it and seeing whether it's blocking in a system call might give a clue. Wading through the logs around that delay might, too. One trick I sometimes use in those cases is to have a teminal open and create syslog messages (with logger) to have timestamps marking the start/end of the perceived delays. > Take care, stay warm and well Tomas First signs of spring around here. Take care -- tomás signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 into an LVM Physical Volume, there won't be an ext4 filesystem on it any more. If sdz1 is turned into a member of an MD array, there won't be an ext4 filesystem on it any more. The labels go with the filesystem. It isn't a filesystem LABEL. Oh dear, I am lost. I don't use gparted but at least one person in this thread has said that Gene created a filesystem label not a partition name, and Gene doesn't know which he created, so I've gone from guessing partition name to fs label and now back to partition name again. I'm totally willing to believe that you know what you've created there though, so fair enough. You've not yet been clear about what you want, but from what little information you have provided you've been told multiple times by multiple people that filesystem labels won't help. ↑ … which would be moot if only Gene could create partition PARTLABELs successfully. Which I have found can also be done with gparted, so the 1st 2 drives which will be put in slot 2 as the Top and Bottom drives in that 2 drive adaptor in slot 2, have had their partitions labeled as SIPWRS2T and SIPWRS2B. And labeled as such with a P-Touch. The other 2 that just walked in the door, are still cold enough to sweat if unsealed. 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 ^%$ drives ever get here, I just looked at the front deck and it has 2" of fresh white stuff on it. To describe what I am building, this is a 5 slot bare drive cage. You could throw tom cats thru it from most angles so I printed pretty sides for it. 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 in a 2 drive adapter, with full disk partitions on them, so obviously I should name the top one as "si-pwr-s2t". the bottom one then s/b si-pwr-s2b slot-3 then s/b si-pwr-s3t and si-pwr-s3b. slot-4 then is giga-s4t1 and giga-s4t2. ditto for the bottom one. named giga-s4b1 and giga-s4b2. 1 partition to hold amanda's database and one to serve as amanda's holding disk. Whats so meaningless to you that you can't see the utility in that? That has not been explained, so please educate me as to why you think its worthless? Thanks, Andy Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 [...] I think at this point few are surprised by that. Last round of debugging we pretty much eliminated disk access as likey cause of those delays. The most hopeful cause for a candidate, IIRC, was some thingy deep in the DE trying to access an unavailable resource. Cheers Is there some way to identify that roadblock? It sure seems to me there ought to be a way to identify whatever it is that is causing it.. Take care, stay warm and well Tomas Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 did NOT go away when I moved /home off the raid > >>> to another SSD, so I may move it back. One of the reasons I ma > >>> rsync'ing this /home back to it every other day or so, takes < 5 > >>> minutes. > >> Please get a small SSD, do a fresh install, and test for the > >> access delay. If the delay is not present, incrementally add and > >> test applications. If you encounter the delay, please stop and > >> post the details; console sessions are best. If not, then connect > >> the disks with /home and test. If you encounter the delay, then > >> please stop and post the details. If you do not encounter the > >> delay, then your system is fixed. Take a Clonezilla image. > > > > FWIW, my crystal ball says "30s => software timeout rather than > > hardware problem" > > > > > > Stefan > > We are on the same page, but what is causing the timeout? You have to follow the steps David suggested including posting the details here as asked, before anybody will be able to answer your question!
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 in a 2 drive adapter, with full disk partitions on them, so > obviously I should name the top one as "si-pwr-s2t". the bottom one then s/b > si-pwr-s2b > slot-3 then s/b si-pwr-s3t and si-pwr-s3b. > slot-4 then is giga-s4t1 and giga-s4t2. ditto for the bottom one. named > giga-s4b1 and giga-s4b2. 1 partition to hold amanda's database and one to > serve as amanda's holding disk. > > Whats so meaningless to you that you can't see the utility in that? I've got no issue with putting a drive identifier on the physical caddy/drawer that holds that drive. I do it myself. You have not ever before in this thread mentioned this, so neither I nor anyone else has objected to it. What I question the value of, is putting a drive identifier into a partlabel when the id of the partition will contain all of the same information. I have also asked you several times what it is you intend to do with that information in the context of a RAID array or LVM LV and you haven't yet been able to tell me. The closest you have come so far is saying, "I want to identify a drive when the array has problems". As you don't specify what those problems might be, all I am able to say to that is that you can either find the problem device from your logs or by listing the devices in the array/LV, and from there map to exact model and serial number from what's in the /dev/disk/by-id/. Now, I understand that you have multiple drives that have the same model and serial number. I accept that if you're going to use multiple of these in the same machine then that makes using by-id/ impossible. I've advised that I would never use multiple of these in the same machine because they are broken and will likely cause other problems further down the line. So if you want to say: despite the duplicate serial number issue I am determined to use multiple of these drives, so by-id/ is useless to me and I will instead replicate that info in partlabels and use /dev/disk/by-partlabel/, then okay! I don't agree with that course of action, but it is at least a cogent argument. So say if that's the case and we can just move on. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Of irrelevant chatter and meta-chatter [was: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive]
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 [...] [rest of irrelevant meta-chatter elided] ...and you are amplifying exactly what you're criticising. Somehow this eminds one of DNS DDOS [1] attacks :-) Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack#Distributed_DoS_attack -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 ^%$ 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. Andy asked what you are trying to accomplish, and you replied with your weather. It would be brilliant comedy if it was not so sad to watch this thread torture the folks who are trying to help you. Painting with a broad brush, there are two types of people in the world - those who listen, and those who wait to talk. I am pretty sure you are one of those who wait to talk. It would behoove you to listen more, talk less, and answer the questions that are asked of you. If you don't, then folks like Andy, David and Max are not going to help you. Jeff
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 won't be an ext4 filesystem on it any more. If sdz1 is turned into a member of an MD array, there won't be an ext4 filesystem on it any more. The labels go with the filesystem. It isn't a filesystem LABEL. Oh dear, I am lost. I don't use gparted but at least one person in this thread has said that Gene created a filesystem label not a partition name, and Gene doesn't know which he created, so I've gone from guessing partition name to fs label and now back to partition name again. I'm totally willing to believe that you know what you've created there though, so fair enough. You've not yet been clear about what you want, but from what little information you have provided you've been told multiple times by multiple people that filesystem labels won't help. ↑ … 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 would be useful to him so I am kind of sceptical that this leads anywhere. 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. To describe what I am building, this is a 5 slot bare drive cage. You could throw tom cats thru it from most angles so I printed pretty sides for it. 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 in a 2 drive adapter, with full disk partitions on them, so obviously I should name the top one as "si-pwr-s2t". the bottom one then s/b si-pwr-s2b slot-3 then s/b si-pwr-s3t and si-pwr-s3b. slot-4 then is giga-s4t1 and giga-s4t2. ditto for the bottom one. named giga-s4b1 and giga-s4b2. 1 partition to hold amanda's database and one to serve as amanda's holding disk. Whats so meaningless to you that you can't see the utility in that? That has not been explained, so please educate me as to why you think its worthless? Thanks, Andy Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 signature
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 surprised by that. Last round of debugging we pretty much eliminated disk access as likey cause of those delays. The most hopeful cause for a candidate, IIRC, was some thingy deep in the DE trying to access an unavailable resource. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 would be useful to him so I am kind of sceptical > that this leads anywhere. https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/02/msg00604.html I think Gene was nonplussed¹ by the "wall of HEX numbers" in that post, where he gives the impression that the by-id/ string has to be copied into the PARTLABEL field, and looks for meaning in a list of /dev/disk/ symlinks without their targets. I would sympathise with the view that by-id/ names are not very memorable, or easy to transcribe if that's ever required. And, of course, we've seen that they're not always unique. That may be a reason to use PARTLABELs instead. But I don't try to keep up with reports of what Gene's trying to do, interspersed as they are with stories of He cylinders and Lead-acid batteries. ¹ British meaning. Cheers, David.
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 that was my thought too. In particular that it might be doing some kind of failed network activity looking for network shares or something. The thing is, we've also seen Gene's computers with strange things like syntax errors in /etc/nsswitch.conf and /etc/hosts, avahi bits manually rm'd, resolv.conf whacked with chattr +i and so on, so it's also no surprise to me that this is difficult to debug. David's suggestion of starting with a minimal install might be the only way to do it. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 it any more. If sdz1 is turned into a > > member of an MD array, there won't be an ext4 filesystem on it any > > more. The labels go with the filesystem. > > It isn't a filesystem LABEL. Oh dear, I am lost. I don't use gparted but at least one person in this thread has said that Gene created a filesystem label not a partition name, and Gene doesn't know which he created, so I've gone from guessing partition name to fs label and now back to partition name again. I'm totally willing to believe that you know what you've created there though, so fair enough. > > You've not yet been clear about what you want, but from what little > > information you have provided you've been told multiple times by > > multiple people that filesystem labels won't help. >↑ > > … 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 would be useful to him so I am kind of sceptical that this leads anywhere. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 raid to another SSD, so I may move it back. One of the reasons I ma rsync'ing this /home back to it every other day or so, takes < 5 minutes. Please get a small SSD, do a fresh install, and test for the access delay. If the delay is not present, incrementally add and test applications. If you encounter the delay, please stop and post the details; console sessions are best. If not, then connect the disks with /home and test. If you encounter the delay, then please stop and post the details. If you do not encounter the delay, then your system is fixed. Take a Clonezilla image. FWIW, my crystal ball says "30s => software timeout rather than hardware problem" Stefan We are on the same page, but what is causing the timeout? . Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 raid to another SSD, so I may move it back. One of the reasons I ma rsync'ing this /home back to it every other day or so, takes < 5 minutes. Please get a small SSD, do a fresh install, and test for the access delay. If the delay is not present, incrementally add and test applications. If you encounter the delay, please stop and post the details; console sessions are best. If not, then connect the disks with /home and test. If you encounter the delay, then please stop and post the details. If you do not encounter the delay, then your system is fixed. Take a Clonezilla image. FWIW, my crystal ball says "30s => software timeout rather than hardware problem" +1 David
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
>> 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 move >> it back. One of the reasons I ma rsync'ing this /home back to it every >> other day or so, takes < 5 minutes. > Please get a small SSD, do a fresh install, and test for the access delay. > If the delay is not present, incrementally add and test applications. > If you encounter the delay, please stop and post the details; console > sessions are best. If not, then connect the disks with /home and test. > If you encounter the delay, then please stop and post the details. If you > do not encounter the delay, then your system is fixed. > Take a Clonezilla image. FWIW, my crystal ball says "30s => software timeout rather than hardware problem" Stefan
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 ache goes away. I seem to recall the Samsung 1 TB SSD's in your /home RAID10 were worn out. I suggest installing the 2 TB M.2 WD Black, partitioning it with GPT, creating one large partition, mounting it at /data, and copying all of the data from /home to /data before the SSD's and RAID fail completely. I recently had an Intel SSD 520 Series 180 GB go from operational to toast, with nothing in between. If that happens to one of those Samsung 1 TB SSD's, there will be no way for the RAID10 to correct the bad blocks on the other other SSD. You will corrupt and lose data. I leave /home on my root partition. My working directories are in CVS. The only ephemeral data is in $HOME/.thunderbird. I have a mail filter that copies incoming mail to a second folder on the IMAP server. I Bcc outgoing mail to another mail account. If my OS disk dies, I restore the image from last month, update Debian, check out my work, reconnect Thunderbird to the various e-mail servers, and clean up the Thunderbird folders as required. No data is lost. David
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 raid to another SSD, so I may move it back. One of the reasons I ma rsync'ing this /home back to it every other day or so, takes < 5 minutes. Please get a small SSD, do a fresh install, and test for the access delay. If the delay is not present, incrementally add and test applications. If you encounter the delay, please stop and post the details; console sessions are best. If not, then connect the disks with /home and test. If you encounter the delay, then please stop and post the details. If you do not encounter the delay, then your system is fixed. Take a Clonezilla image. David
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 serial numbers. Please remove > one SSD of each pair so that the remaining SSD's all have unique > serial numbers. Return them for a refund while you still can. If you > cannot, put them in another computer or put them on the shelf as > spares. Surely split them between at least two computers, so that neither contains a duplicate? Cheers, David.
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 > > > BSD: not present > > > APM: not present > > > GPT: present > > > > > >Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT. > > >Disk /dev/sdb: 3907029168 sectors, 1.8 TiB > > >Model: Desktop > > >Sector size (logical/physical): 512/512 bytes > > >Disk identifier (GUID): A1093790-9A1A-4A7E-A807-B9CC6F7CF77E > > >Partition table holds up to 128 entries > > >Main partition table begins at sector 2 and ends at sector 33 > > >First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 3907029134 > > >Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries > > >Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB) > > > > > >Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name > > > 12048 3907029134 1.8 TiB 8300 Lulu01 > > ># > > > . > > And this "partition" name survives? > > 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 it any more. If sdz1 is turned into a > member of an MD array, there won't be an ext4 filesystem on it any > more. The labels go with the filesystem. It isn't a filesystem LABEL. See attached partition and filesystem information, the output from: $ cp -ip /run/udev/data/b8\:33 /tmp/partition-data $ cp -ip /run/udev/data/b253\:2 /tmp/filesystem-data $ In particular, E:ID_PART_ENTRY_NAME=Lulu01 from the first attachment and E:ID_FS_LABEL=lulu01 // E:ID_FS_LABEL_ENC=lulu01 from the second. > > and can be unique? > > I don't know what that means to you or why it is useful. > > > and can be used in a mount cmd? > > Once the RAID and/or LVM is set up and a filesystem put on it, that > filesystem can be mounted by label just like any filesystem can, but > that filesystem may have multiple devices underneath it owing to the > fact that it's on RAID and/or LVM, so there is no information you > can put in its label that will tell you anything about those > underlying devices. > > > if all 3 questions above can be answered with a yes is the answer > > I've been trying to squeeze out all along. > > You've not yet been clear about what you want, but from what little > information you have provided you've been told multiple times by > multiple people that filesystem labels won't help. ↑ … which would be moot if only Gene could create partition PARTLABELs successfully. Cheers, David. S:disk/by-partuuid/37cf9edf-c695-428e-9889-2f52c40dfca5 S:disk/by-partlabel/Lulu01 S:disk/by-id/ata-ST2000DL003-9VT166_5YD1QX3D-part1 S:disk/by-uuid/11bb81f5-14e5-404a-8548-80bcb1e5071c S:disk/by-id/usb-Seagate_Desktop_2GHN1XW7-0:0-part1 S:disk/by-path/pci-:00:14.0-usb-0:2:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:0-part1 S:disk/by-id/wwn-0x5000c5002f893194-part1 W:32 I:3947430162 E:ID_ATA=1 E:ID_TYPE=disk E:ID_BUS=ata E:ID_MODEL=ST2000DL003-9VT166 E:ID_MODEL_ENC=ST2000DL003-9VT166\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20 E:ID_REVISION=CC98 E:ID_SERIAL=ST2000DL003-9VT166_5YD1QX3D E:ID_SERIAL_SHORT=5YD1QX3D E:ID_ATA_WRITE_CACHE=1 E:ID_ATA_WRITE_CACHE_ENABLED=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_HPA=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_HPA_ENABLED=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_PM=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_PM_ENABLED=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_SECURITY=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_SECURITY_ENABLED=0 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_SECURITY_ERASE_UNIT_MIN=332 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_SECURITY_ENHANCED_ERASE_UNIT_MIN=332 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_SMART=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_SMART_ENABLED=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_AAM=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_AAM_ENABLED=1 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_AAM_VENDOR_RECOMMENDED_VALUE=208 E:ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_AAM_CURRENT_VALUE=208 E:ID_ATA_DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE=1 E:ID_ATA_SATA=1 E:ID_ATA_SATA_SIGNAL_RATE_GEN2=1 E:ID_ATA_SATA_SIGNAL_RATE_GEN1=1 E:ID_ATA_ROTATION_RATE_RPM=5900 E:ID_WWN=0x5000c5002f893194 E:ID_WWN_WITH_EXTENSION=0x5000c5002f893194 E:ID_USB_MODEL=Desktop E:ID_USB_MODEL_ENC=Desktop\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20 E:ID_USB_MODEL_ID=3300 E:ID_USB_SERIAL=Seagate_Desktop_2GHN1XW7-0:0 E:ID_USB_SERIAL_SHORT=2GHN1XW7 E:ID_USB_VENDOR=Seagate E:ID_USB_VENDOR_ENC=Seagate\x20 E:ID_USB_VENDOR_ID=0bc2 E:ID_USB_REVISION=0130 E:ID_USB_TYPE=disk E:ID_USB_INSTANCE=0:0 E:ID_USB_INTERFACES=:080650: E:ID_USB_INTERFACE_NUM=00 E:ID_USB_DRIVER=usb-storage E:ID_PATH=pci-:00:14.0-usb-0:2:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:0 E:ID_PATH_TAG=pci-_00_14_0-usb-0_2_1_0-scsi-0_0_0_0 E:ID_PART_TABLE_UUID=a1093790-9a1a-4a7e-a807-b9cc6f7cf77e E:ID_PART_TABLE_TYPE=gpt E:ID_FS_VERSION=2 E:ID_FS_UUID=11bb81f5-14e5-404a-8548-80bcb1e5071c E:ID_FS_UUID_ENC=11bb81f5-14e5-404a-8548-80bcb1e5071c E:ID_FS_TYPE=crypto_LUKS E:ID_FS_USAGE=crypto
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 "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 still confused and it is not all the well clarified by looking at
> > > > gparted, a shot of which I posted.
> > >
> > > This could all be answered easily if you'd just post the copy-paste
> > > of your terminal scrollback for what you actually did. Hopefully you
> > > don't now object to me asking what you meant since apparently even
> > > you do not know if you mean partition names or filesystem labels.
> > > >From what you posted it now sounds like labels on the ext4
> > > filesystems that you created.
> >
> > Gene effectively shoots himself in the foot by using gparted (GUI)
> > instead of, say, gdisk where it's easy to paste what was done, or
> > for someone, say me, to post an example:
[ … skipped over creating the partition table … ]
> ># gdisk -l /dev/sdz
> >GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.3
> >
> >Partition table scan:
> > MBR: protective
> > BSD: not present
> > APM: not present
> > GPT: present
> >
> >Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT.
> >Disk /dev/sdb: 3907029168 sectors, 1.8 TiB
> >Model: Desktop
> >Sector size (logical/physical): 512/512 bytes
> >Disk identifier (GUID): A1093790-9A1A-4A7E-A807-B9CC6F7CF77E
> >Partition table holds up to 128 entries
> >Main partition table begins at sector 2 and ends at sector 33
> >First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 3907029134
> >Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries
> >Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB)
> >
> >Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name
> > 12048 3907029134 1.8 TiB 8300 Lulu01
> >#
> >
> And this "partition" name survives?, and can be unique?, and can be
> used in a mount cmd? That's how I'll do it then. This if all 3
> questions above can be answered with a yes is the answer I've been
> trying to squeeze out all along. Thank you.
Yes, the partition name (PARTLABEL) is in the partition table, not
inside the partition itself. It's as unique as you make it, because
you choose it. I've scrawled the names of my disks on the casing with
a magic marker for 25 years, from adam (6.4GB fujitsu) to wick (2TB WD).
The PARTLABELs and LABELs use that name as the stem, capitalised and
lowercase respectively.
As for using it with the mount command, that depends on what the
partition contains. For a straightforward filesystem, you can, as
described by man mount (under Indicating the device and filesystem).
But I wouldn't, and I don't think you want to, as I believe you want
to use the partition as /part/ of something larger.
Whether you /can/ use it to mount depends on what the partition
contains. I don't use LVM or RAID, so I can't advise you there, except
to say that you wouldn't want to mount one piece of a larger structure,
AFAIK. But in my case, I use LUKS encryption, and I can demonstrate
what happens:
$ sudo udisksctl unlock --block-device /dev/disk/by-partlabel/Lulu01
Passphrase:
Unlocked /dev/sdc1 as /dev/dm-2.
$
# mount /dev/disk/by-partlabel/Lulu01 /media/lulu01
mount: /media/lulu01: unknown filesystem type 'crypto_LUKS'.
#
You don't want to mount the partition, but the filesystem /within/ the
partition:
# mount LABEL=lulu01 /media/lulu01
#
Of course, I don't normally use mount as root because I have an entry
in /etc/fstab:
LABEL=lulu01 /media/lulu01 ext4 rw,errors=remount-ro,user,noauto
and I use a bash function called, surprisingly, lulu, as there's only
one partition on the disk:
$ type lulu
lulu is a function
lulu ()
{
sudo udisksctl unlock --block-device /dev/disk/by-partlabel/Lulu01 && mount
/media/lulu01
}
$
thus:
$ lulu
Passphrase:
Unlocked /dev/sdc1 as /dev/dm-2.
$
But I would emphasise that, having unlocked the partition, I mount
the filesystem because it stands alone. It's not part of a RAID,
LVM, or whatever, that might need assembling with other components
before mounting the whole ensemble.
Cheers,
David.
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 all have unique serial numbers. Return them for a refund while you still can. If you cannot, put them in another computer or put them on the shelf as spares. David
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 choices are RAID5, RAID6, and RAID10. Regarding redundancy: * RAID5 can tolerate the loss of any one disk. * RAID6 can tolerate the loss of any two disks. * RAID10 can tolerate the loss of any one disk. If you get lucky, RAID10 can tolerate the loss of multiple disks if each lost disk is in a different mirror. Regarding capacity, if each disk stores B bytes: * RAID5 gives you (N-1) * B capacity. * RAID6 gives you (N-2) * B capacity. * RAID10 gives you (N/2) * B capacity. If each disk has performance P: * RAID5 has performance ranging from P to (N-1) * P. * RAID6 has performance ranging from P to (N-2) * P. * RAID10 with M mirrors of D disks each has write performance M * P and read performance M * D * P. Other factors to consider: * All of the above needs to be reconsidered when one or more disks fail -- e.g. the array is operating in degraded mode. * All of the above needs to be reconsidered when a failed disk has been replaced -- e.g. the array is resilvering. * All of the above needs to be reconsidered when disk(s) fail during resilvering (!). * RAID5 and RAID6 typically do not allow changes to topology -- e.g. the number of disks in the array and the number of bytes used in each disk. * RAID0, RAID1, and JBOD may allow some changes to topology. What is allowed depends upon implementation. * With more disks, you may be able to create hierarchies -- e.g. stripe of mirrors (RAID10). Redundancy, capacity, and/or performance under operational, degraded, resilvering, etc., modes all need to be reconsidered. * Hot spares can be added. Again, reconsider everything. * And more. So, it's a multi-dimensional problem and there are many combinations and permutations. The more disks you have, the more possibilities you have. I suggest picking two or three, and exploring them using a dedicated computer, a snapshot of your data, and your workload. I am currently using ZFS and a stripe of 2 mirrors with 2 @ 3 TB HDD's each and SSD read cache. I expect the same could be implemented with mdadm(8), lvm(8), bcache, dm-cache, btrfs, and others. David
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 features in it would be better. Like btrfs or zfs. May I miss-understood the wiki, xfs is stated as not being complete for linux, a zfx is I think commercial? Can you update that? Sorry, which wiki page do you think says XFS is not complete? . I wasn't awake enough to bookmark it. I'm not done with wiki yet, if I run across it again I'll post the link. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 features in it > > would be better. Like btrfs or zfs. > May I miss-understood the wiki, xfs is stated as not being complete for > linux, a zfx is I think commercial? > Can you update that? I'd rather not try to explain XFS and ZFS to you when it's not even clear what you're trying to achieve. In all likelihood you will not need to use either XFS or ZFS. Also we can't correct a wiki article without knowing what it is… > the gui access delay (30+ seconds) problems I have did NOT go away > when I moved /home off the raid to another SSD More evidence that those problems had nothing to do with RAID or the storage devices you used in your RAID, but is something broken in your desktop software setup. Unfortunately I have no idea how to debug that. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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: present > > > >Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT. > >Disk /dev/sdb: 3907029168 sectors, 1.8 TiB > >Model: Desktop > >Sector size (logical/physical): 512/512 bytes > >Disk identifier (GUID): A1093790-9A1A-4A7E-A807-B9CC6F7CF77E > >Partition table holds up to 128 entries > >Main partition table begins at sector 2 and ends at sector 33 > >First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 3907029134 > >Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries > >Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB) > > > >Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name > > 12048 3907029134 1.8 TiB 8300 Lulu01 > ># > > . > And this "partition" name survives? 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 it any more. If sdz1 is turned into a member of an MD array, there won't be an ext4 filesystem on it any more. The labels go with the filesystem. > and can be unique? I don't know what that means to you or why it is useful. > and can be used in a mount cmd? Once the RAID and/or LVM is set up and a filesystem put on it, that filesystem can be mounted by label just like any filesystem can, but that filesystem may have multiple devices underneath it owing to the fact that it's on RAID and/or LVM, so there is no information you can put in its label that will tell you anything about those underlying devices. > if all 3 questions above can be answered with a yes is the answer > I've been trying to squeeze out all along. You've not yet been clear about what you want, but from what little information you have provided you've been told multiple times by multiple people that filesystem labels won't help. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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? > > > > Support you have LVM logical volume /dev/myvg/mylv. What are you > > conceptually wanting to do with that in relation to labels of some > > kind? What information is it that you want? > > > 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. So this is an example of you moving the goal posts. You started off by saying you needed to identify something just from the array device name, but now you say you need to identify which drive in the array has a problem (exact problem not specified). The /proc/mdstats file shows all the devices that are in all the MD arrays. Any time the kernel has problems with a device it logs the name of the actual device (not the array etc.) in the system log. If the problems are bad enough then the MD driver notices and removes the device from the array. This is normal-looking content of /proc/mdstat: $ cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md1 : active raid1 sda3[1] nvme0n1p3[0] 243316736 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] bitmap: 1/2 pages [4KB], 65536KB chunk Where it says [UU] it would say [_U] or [U_] if one of those devices had been removed, and in the list of devices the one that's failed would have an (F) after it. But I'm fairly sure that in all your posts about your RAID-10 people have been through this with you multiple times, so this must not actually be the information that you are after. Furthermore I do not understand how your idea of labelling drives (or partitions or filesystems) would ever give you this information even if it had worked. If you mean that you have system logs that say for example that sda1 has problems, and you want to find out what sda1 actually is, well I already showed you one way: by looking in /dev/disk/by-id/. There's also "smartctl -i /dev/sda", and others have posted other ways. If you don't mean that, then tell us what actual information you are starting from, and what you hope to get from there. "My array has problems, how do I find the problem drive within it" is too vague because we don't know what "my array has problems" actually means. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 or zfs. > May I miss-understood the wiki, xfs is stated as not being complete > for linux, a zfx is I think commercial? > Can you update that? Sorry, which wiki page do you think says XFS is not complete?
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 created that but didn't use it. It was just 16 MB of zeros in a very inconvenient location.
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 you mean partition names, no if you mean filesystem
labels".
I'm still confused and it is not all the well clarified by looking at
gparted, a shot of which I posted.
This could all be answered easily if you'd just post the copy-paste
of your terminal scrollback for what you actually did. Hopefully you
don't now object to me asking what you meant since apparently even
you do not know if you mean partition names or filesystem labels.
>From what you posted it now sounds like labels on the ext4
filesystems that you created.
Gene effectively shoots himself in the foot by using gparted (GUI)
instead of, say, gdisk where it's easy to paste what was done, or
for someone, say me, to post an example:
# gdisk /dev/sdz
GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.3
Partition table scan:
MBR: not present
BSD: not present
APM: not present
GPT: not present
Creating new GPT entries.
Command (? for help): o
This option deletes all partitions and creates a new protective MBR.
Proceed? (Y/N): y
Command (? for help): p
Disk /dev/sdb: 3907029168 sectors, 1.8 TiB
Model: Desktop
Sector size (logical/physical): 512/512 bytes
Disk identifier (GUID): A1093790-9A1A-4A7E-A807-B9CC6F7CF77E
Partition table holds up to 128 entries
Main partition table begins at sector 2 and ends at sector 33
First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 3907029134
Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries
Total free space is 3907029101 sectors (1.8 TiB)
Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name
Command (? for help): n
Partition number (1-128, default 1):
First sector (34-3907029134, default = 2048) or {+-}size{KMGTP}:
Last sector (2048-3907029134, default = 3907029134) or {+-}size{KMGTP}:
Current type is 'Linux filesystem'
Hex code or GUID (L to show codes, Enter = 8300):
Changed type of partition to 'Linux filesystem'
Command (? for help): c
Using 1
Enter name: Lulu01
Command (? for help): i
Using 1
Partition GUID code: 0FC63DAF-8483-4772-8E79-3D69D8477DE4 (Linux filesystem)
Partition unique GUID: 37CF9EDF-C695-428E-9889-2F52C40DFCA5
First sector: 2048 (at 1024.0 KiB)
Last sector: 3907029134 (at 1.8 TiB)
Partition size: 3907027087 sectors (1.8 TiB)
Attribute flags:
Partition name: 'Lulu01'
Command (? for help): w
Final checks complete. About to write GPT data. THIS WILL OVERWRITE EXISTING
PARTITIONS!!
Do you want to proceed? (Y/N): y
OK; writing new GUID partition table (GPT) to /dev/sdb.
The operation has completed successfully.
#
# gdisk -l /dev/sdz
GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.3
Partition table scan:
MBR: protective
BSD: not present
APM: not present
GPT: present
Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT.
Disk /dev/sdb: 3907029168 sectors, 1.8 TiB
Model: Desktop
Sector size (logical/physical): 512/512 bytes
Disk identifier (GUID): A1093790-9A1A-4A7E-A807-B9CC6F7CF77E
Partition table holds up to 128 entries
Main partition table begins at sector 2 and ends at sector 33
First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 3907029134
Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries
Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB)
Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name
12048 3907029134 1.8 TiB 8300 Lulu01
#
Cheers,
David.
.
And this "partition" name survives?, and can be unique?, and can be used
in a mount cmd? That's how I'll do it then. This if all 3 questions
above can be answered with a yes is the answer I've been trying to
squeeze out all along. Thank you.
Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 rack stops me in my tracks. Given that an MD RAID array or a LVM Logical Volume may be spread across many different underlying storage devices, the question doesn't make sense. Due to the fact that filesystems go on block devices, and RAID arrays and LVM LVs can be block devices, a filesystem label in that instance would represent possibly multiple underlying storage devices. So step back and tell us what are you actually trying to achieve, rather than insisting on your X solution to your Y problem. 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? Support you have LVM logical volume /dev/myvg/mylv. What are you conceptually wanting to do with that in relation to labels of some kind? What information is it that you want? 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 ache goes away. Particularly with these gigastones, I 5 of them but when all are plugged in there are only 3 becauae there are 2 pairs of matching serial numbers in the by-id output, by-id sees all 5 drives, but udev see's only the unique serial numbers. gparted can change the devices blkid, getting a new one from rng so while you all think that's the greatest thing since bottled beer, I know better. Once you explain what information you're trying to get when you start with an LVM or MD device, I can probably advise how to get it, but just to make clear: I don't think it's a good idea to continue to use such broken devices. We don't need to debate that since I know you've been posting about that a lot and clearly have decided to push ahead. I just think you haven't seen the end of the problems with that issue. Regards, Andy Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 labels". I'm still confused and it is not all the well clarified by looking at gparted, a shot of which I posted. This could all be answered easily if you'd just post the copy-paste of your terminal scrollback for what you actually did. Hopefully you don't now object to me asking what you meant since apparently even you do not know if you mean partition names or filesystem labels. From what you posted it now sounds like labels on the ext4 filesystems that you created. What you're trying to do (LVM on MD RAID?) is quite complicated and you clearly don't have much experience in this area. That's okay but it does mean that you're likely to make a lot of mistakes with a thing that holds your data, so you need to be prepared for that. For example, you mentioned only as an aside that you intended to get two more drives and put the four of them into an LVM, but you did not know that this would blow away the filesystems already on the drives, and that this would not by itself provide you with any redundancy. So if you hadn't said anything and I hadn't questioned this, you could well have spent a lot of time creating something that isn't correct and needs to be torn down again, possibly with data loss. Again that's okay — we learn by experimentation — but you're going to have to prepare yourself for doing this over again many times. And I also want to reiterate that you're going to have questions, and that is good, but if we here on this list are not to be driven insane by the ambiguities and misunderstandings, please, please, PLEASE post logs of the commands you type on this adventure when you ask them. Please. If you have questions, ask them. Like which version of a raid is the best at tolerating a failed drive, which give he best balance between redundancy and capacity. This is a complex subject. Before we get into it, what are you trying to achieve? Like, what is your end goal with these four drives? 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 or zfs. May I miss-understood the wiki, xfs is stated as not being complete for linux, a zfx is I think commercial? Can you update that? Given the problems you had with MD RAID in the past I still maintain that you'd likely be better off just getting a storage appliance of some kind. 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 move it back. One of the reasons I ma rsync'ing this /home back to it every other day or so, takes < 5 minutes. Thanks, Andy Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
> 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 the disk *outside* of the partition used by LVM/MD. I can see a few different options: - Use some disk-specific tool to change the disk's serial numbers. I'm not sure how common such tools are, they're probably manufacturer-specific and proprietary; my intuition tells me to try any other way first. - Use partition labels and/or partition UUIDs: contrary to filesystem labels, these are not stored inside the block device but inside the partition table. They don't exist in the old MBR-style partitions, but they do in GPT (GUID Partition Tables). - Use an additional tiny dummy partition in which you can put any info you like. Stefan
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 labels". I'm still confused and it is not all the well clarified by looking at gparted, a shot of which I posted. This could all be answered easily if you'd just post the copy-paste of your terminal scrollback for what you actually did. Hopefully you don't now object to me asking what you meant since apparently even you do not know if you mean partition names or filesystem labels. From what you posted it now sounds like labels on the ext4 filesystems that you created. What you're trying to do (LVM on MD RAID?) is quite complicated and you clearly don't have much experience in this area. That's okay but it does mean that you're likely to make a lot of mistakes with a thing that holds your data, so you need to be prepared for that. For example, you mentioned only as an aside that you intended to get two more drives and put the four of them into an LVM, but you did not know that this would blow away the filesystems already on the drives, and that this would not by itself provide you with any redundancy. So if you hadn't said anything and I hadn't questioned this, you could well have spent a lot of time creating something that isn't correct and needs to be torn down again, possibly with data loss. That is how we learn Andy Any data I put on this stuff while testing as normal files will be expected to be lost. So that possibility is expected. Experience is how I got where I am on an 8th grade education. Again that's okay — we learn by experimentation — but you're going to have to prepare yourself for doing this over again many times. Expected. And I also want to reiterate that you're going to have questions, and that is good, but if we here on this list are not to be driven insane by the ambiguities and misunderstandings, please, please, PLEASE post logs of the commands you type on this adventure when you ask them. I'll try. Please. If you have questions, ask them. When I get it assembled. Last 2 drives s/b here tom. Then I need to shut down and extract 4 of the gisastones which are plugged in atm but unmounted, the 5th one is now my /home partition. And I am rsync'ing /home back to that now idle raid10 about every other day. Like which version of a raid is the best at tolerating a failed drive, which give he best balance between redundancy and capacity. This is a complex subject. Before we get into it, what are you trying to achieve? Like, what is your end goal with these four drives? 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 or zfs. Given the problems you had with MD RAID in the past I still maintain that you'd likely be better off just getting a storage appliance of some kind. Thanks, Andy Thank you Andy. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 partition names, no if you mean filesystem
> > > labels".
> > >
> > I'm still confused and it is not all the well clarified by looking at
> > gparted, a shot of which I posted.
>
> This could all be answered easily if you'd just post the copy-paste
> of your terminal scrollback for what you actually did. Hopefully you
> don't now object to me asking what you meant since apparently even
> you do not know if you mean partition names or filesystem labels.
> >From what you posted it now sounds like labels on the ext4
> filesystems that you created.
Gene effectively shoots himself in the foot by using gparted (GUI)
instead of, say, gdisk where it's easy to paste what was done, or
for someone, say me, to post an example:
# gdisk /dev/sdz
GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.3
Partition table scan:
MBR: not present
BSD: not present
APM: not present
GPT: not present
Creating new GPT entries.
Command (? for help): o
This option deletes all partitions and creates a new protective MBR.
Proceed? (Y/N): y
Command (? for help): p
Disk /dev/sdb: 3907029168 sectors, 1.8 TiB
Model: Desktop
Sector size (logical/physical): 512/512 bytes
Disk identifier (GUID): A1093790-9A1A-4A7E-A807-B9CC6F7CF77E
Partition table holds up to 128 entries
Main partition table begins at sector 2 and ends at sector 33
First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 3907029134
Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries
Total free space is 3907029101 sectors (1.8 TiB)
Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name
Command (? for help): n
Partition number (1-128, default 1):
First sector (34-3907029134, default = 2048) or {+-}size{KMGTP}:
Last sector (2048-3907029134, default = 3907029134) or {+-}size{KMGTP}:
Current type is 'Linux filesystem'
Hex code or GUID (L to show codes, Enter = 8300):
Changed type of partition to 'Linux filesystem'
Command (? for help): c
Using 1
Enter name: Lulu01
Command (? for help): i
Using 1
Partition GUID code: 0FC63DAF-8483-4772-8E79-3D69D8477DE4 (Linux filesystem)
Partition unique GUID: 37CF9EDF-C695-428E-9889-2F52C40DFCA5
First sector: 2048 (at 1024.0 KiB)
Last sector: 3907029134 (at 1.8 TiB)
Partition size: 3907027087 sectors (1.8 TiB)
Attribute flags:
Partition name: 'Lulu01'
Command (? for help): w
Final checks complete. About to write GPT data. THIS WILL OVERWRITE EXISTING
PARTITIONS!!
Do you want to proceed? (Y/N): y
OK; writing new GUID partition table (GPT) to /dev/sdb.
The operation has completed successfully.
#
# gdisk -l /dev/sdz
GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.3
Partition table scan:
MBR: protective
BSD: not present
APM: not present
GPT: present
Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT.
Disk /dev/sdb: 3907029168 sectors, 1.8 TiB
Model: Desktop
Sector size (logical/physical): 512/512 bytes
Disk identifier (GUID): A1093790-9A1A-4A7E-A807-B9CC6F7CF77E
Partition table holds up to 128 entries
Main partition table begins at sector 2 and ends at sector 33
First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 3907029134
Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries
Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB)
Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name
12048 3907029134 1.8 TiB 8300 Lulu01
#
Cheers,
David.
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 that an MD RAID array or a LVM Logical Volume may be spread across many different underlying storage devices, the question doesn't make sense. Due to the fact that filesystems go on block devices, and RAID arrays and LVM LVs can be block devices, a filesystem label in that instance would represent possibly multiple underlying storage devices. So step back and tell us what are you actually trying to achieve, rather than insisting on your X solution to your Y problem. 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? Support you have LVM logical volume /dev/myvg/mylv. What are you conceptually wanting to do with that in relation to labels of some kind? What information is it that you want? > Particularly with these gigastones, I 5 of them but when all are plugged in > there are only 3 becauae there are 2 pairs of matching serial numbers in the > by-id output, by-id sees all 5 drives, but udev see's only the unique > serial numbers. gparted can change the devices blkid, getting a new one from > rng so while you all think that's the greatest thing since bottled beer, I > know better. Once you explain what information you're trying to get when you start with an LVM or MD device, I can probably advise how to get it, but just to make clear: I don't think it's a good idea to continue to use such broken devices. We don't need to debate that since I know you've been posting about that a lot and clearly have decided to push ahead. I just think you haven't seen the end of the problems with that issue. Regards, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 a mailing list it is probably an error. We did not see whatever it was, but it doesn't sound relevant. FWIW, the photo that Gene attached was certainly attached to the mail that the list sent to me, so I suppose that this list does permit attachments, at least in some circumstances. Oh yes you're right, I see it too now I've looked properly! So now I actually think Gene means a filesystem label? Sigh, this really does not need to be this difficult. Anyway I see that the image of gparted says there's an ext4 filesystem there. So, Gene: when you put those partitions into LVM (when you make them LVM Physical Volumes) the filesystems on them will be trashed, and so will the filesystem labels. Which is the answer I needed. Those names I wrote with gparted WILL be trashed. 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. Particularly with these gigastones, I 5 of them but when all are plugged in there are only 3 becauae there are 2 pairs of matching serial numbers in the by-id output, by-id sees all 5 drives, but udev see's only the unique serial numbers. gparted can change the devices blkid, getting a new one from rng so while you all think that's the greatest thing since bottled beer, I know better. Take care, stay well all. Thanks, Andy Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 still confused and it is not all the well clarified by looking at > gparted, a shot of which I posted. This could all be answered easily if you'd just post the copy-paste of your terminal scrollback for what you actually did. Hopefully you don't now object to me asking what you meant since apparently even you do not know if you mean partition names or filesystem labels. >From what you posted it now sounds like labels on the ext4 filesystems that you created. What you're trying to do (LVM on MD RAID?) is quite complicated and you clearly don't have much experience in this area. That's okay but it does mean that you're likely to make a lot of mistakes with a thing that holds your data, so you need to be prepared for that. For example, you mentioned only as an aside that you intended to get two more drives and put the four of them into an LVM, but you did not know that this would blow away the filesystems already on the drives, and that this would not by itself provide you with any redundancy. So if you hadn't said anything and I hadn't questioned this, you could well have spent a lot of time creating something that isn't correct and needs to be torn down again, possibly with data loss. Again that's okay — we learn by experimentation — but you're going to have to prepare yourself for doing this over again many times. And I also want to reiterate that you're going to have questions, and that is good, but if we here on this list are not to be driven insane by the ambiguities and misunderstandings, please, please, PLEASE post logs of the commands you type on this adventure when you ask them. Please. > > If you have questions, ask them. > > > Like which version of a raid is the best at tolerating a failed drive, which > give he best balance between redundancy and capacity. This is a complex subject. Before we get into it, what are you trying to achieve? Like, what is your end goal with these four drives? 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 or zfs. Given the problems you had with MD RAID in the past I still maintain that you'd likely be better off just getting a storage appliance of some kind. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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). Otherwise by default what you'll have is not redundant and a device failure will lose at least the contents of that device, possibly more. You pique my curiosity because this is going to be my backup system, but not a syllable about how to do it. You tell me its fine 3 paragraphs up. then tell me lvcreate will wipe it out. I'm asking for answers, not more connumdrums.. You've split your reply to my mail across three different emails and now you're replying to a part about redundancy, but asking questions about something completely different, all while referring to bits that are not proximal to where your text is, so it's unclear to me exactly what you are asking about. 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 still confused and it is not all the well clarified by looking at gparted, a shot of which I posted. Wikipedia seems to have the history but not the practice to the depth i'd like. I also looked at XFS on wikipedia, looks good, but I note it says then linux version linux is not complete. 2 more of the big Si Pwr 3.64T's will be here tomorrow. So I'll be inclined to put it together and see what I can make it do. There will no doubt be questions. To my implied question about your redundancy plans (if any), you then complain that I have not given you "a syllable about how to do it". Do *what*? I don't yet know what your plans are in that regard. If you have questions, ask them. Like which version of a raid is the best at tolerating a failed drive, which give he best balance between redundancy and capacity. Take care & stay well, Andy. Regards, Andy Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 probably an error. We did > > not see whatever it was, but it doesn't sound relevant. > > FWIW, the photo that Gene attached was certainly attached to the mail > that the list sent to me, so I suppose that this list does permit > attachments, at least in some circumstances. Oh yes you're right, I see it too now I've looked properly! So now I actually think Gene means a filesystem label? Sigh, this really does not need to be this difficult. Anyway I see that the image of gparted says there's an ext4 filesystem there. So, Gene: when you put those partitions into LVM (when you make them LVM Physical Volumes) the filesystems on them will be trashed, and so will the filesystem labels. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 things that you like to call "partition > > > labels". > > > > This is what gparted calls a "partition label" > > Okay, thanks for clarifying. This, or preferably a copy-paste of the > actual parted command session would suffice. > > I don't know what the relevance is of the rest of the following > paragraph - your life story is not required and you were not accused > of lying, just asked to clarify. > > 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 probably an error. We did > not see whatever it was, but it doesn't sound relevant. FWIW, the photo that Gene attached was certainly attached to the mail that the list sent to me, so I suppose that this list does permit attachments, at least in some circumstances. I do agree with your sentiment that the text output of a CLI command is both simpler and better though.
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 need to go out of > > > > your way to do). Otherwise by default what you'll have is not > > > > redundant and a device failure will lose at least the contents of > > > > that device, possibly more. > > > > > > You pique my curiosity because this is going to be my backup system, but not > > a syllable about how to do it. You tell me its fine 3 paragraphs up. then > > tell me lvcreate will wipe it out. I'm asking for answers, not more > > connumdrums.. > > You've split your reply to my mail across three different emails and > now you're replying to a part about redundancy, but asking questions > about something completely different, all while referring to bits > that are not proximal to where your text is, so it's unclear to me > exactly what you are asking about. > > 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". > > To my implied question about your redundancy plans (if any), you > then complain that I have not given you "a syllable about how to do > it". Do *what*? I don't yet know what your plans are in that regard. > If you have questions, ask them. I think the paste in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/02/msg00611.html shows that SiPwr_1 is a filesystem LABEL, not a PARTLABEL, lying as it does between an FSVER and a UUID. Cheers, David.
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 what you'll have is not > > > redundant and a device failure will lose at least the contents of > > > that device, possibly more. > > > > You pique my curiosity because this is going to be my backup system, but not > a syllable about how to do it. You tell me its fine 3 paragraphs up. then > tell me lvcreate will wipe it out. I'm asking for answers, not more > connumdrums.. You've split your reply to my mail across three different emails and now you're replying to a part about redundancy, but asking questions about something completely different, all while referring to bits that are not proximal to where your text is, so it's unclear to me exactly what you are asking about. 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". To my implied question about your redundancy plans (if any), you then complain that I have not given you "a syllable about how to do it". Do *what*? I don't yet know what your plans are in that regard. If you have questions, ask them. Regards, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 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 things that you like to call "partition > > labels". > > This is what gparted calls a "partition label" Okay, thanks for clarifying. This, or preferably a copy-paste of the actual parted command session would suffice. I don't know what the relevance is of the rest of the following paragraph - your life story is not required and you were not accused of lying, just asked to clarify. 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 probably an error. We did not see whatever it was, but it doesn't sound relevant. > and certainly does not need a 4.5 megabyte camera image to see. or > even a 50k screen snap. Taking this screenshot was a pita, because > the gparted window disappears behind the terminal screen when you > click on take another shot, so you have to quit, then find the > gparted on the tool bar to bring it back to the front, then move > it and the terminal so its not totally hidden. Then rerun > spectacle again waste a click bringing it fwd, then 30 seconds > later the spectacal instructions finally show up and after 5 > minutes of screwing around, finally get the screen shot attached > to prove I'm not lieing. Regards, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 /dev/disk/by-id/… which > > already have that information and are already never going to change. > > I don't know why you want to complicate matters. > > Will the by-id string fit in the space reserved for a label? I doubt it, but what would be the point of doing that? The device ID conveys all the same information that you're putting in the partition name. > I dare you to find the disk that udev calls sdc in the above wall of text. $ ls -l /dev/disk/by-id | grep sdb1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jan 17 02:49 ata-SAMSUNG_MZ7KM1T9HAJM-5_S2HNNAAGA00863-part1 -> ../../sdb1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jan 17 02:49 wwn-0x5002538c00066800-part1 -> ../../sdb1 Thus, partition 1 of sdb1 is on partition 1 of /dev/disk/by-id/ata-SAMSUNG_MZ7KM1T9HAJM-5_S2HNNAAGA00863. Information already held by the kernel; no need to duplicate it in a GPT partition name or anywhere else. There are many other ways to retrieve the same information; that was the first that sprang to mind but I would not use that in a script because it's basically parsing ls (a big no-no). If you'd simply state what you're trying to achieve then 99.9% of all your posts wouldn't be massive X/Y problems. > Why can't you understand that I want a unique label for all of this stuff > that is NOT a wall of HEX numbers no one can remember. Its not mounted, so > blkid does NOT see it. See above. You're welcome. I note that you still haven't responded with the exact command you used to set these "labels", so at this point we still do not know exactly what you mean and I have to proceed assuming you meant GPT partition name. A simple request that would enable us to help you better, ignored. Regards, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 FSAVAIL FSUSE% MOUNTPOINTS PARTLABEL sdc └─sdc1 ext4 1.0 SiPwr_1 70bfe832-38b1-46ed-85f4-33cf473185bb . Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 what exactly you are talking about, because as previously discussed there's a lot of different things that you like to call "partition labels". 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. Taking this screenshot was a pita, because the gparted window disappears behind the terminal screen when you click on take another shot, so you have to quit, then find the gparted on the tool bar to bring it back to the front, then move it and the terminal so its not totally hidden. Then rerun spectacle again waste a click bringing it fwd, then 30 seconds later the spectacal instructions finally show up and after 5 minutes of screwing around, finally get the screen shot attached to prove I'm not lieing. If we take that literally that would be a GPT partition name, but you've used this same terminology before and meant a filesystem label. My only question it will those partition names survive lvcreating an 11T lvm out of these and 2 more 2T gigastones. Assuming you meant partition name the first time as well, nothing you do other than a disk wipe or re-name should alter those partition names. 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 /dev/disk/by-id/… which already have that information and are already never going to change. I don't know why you want to complicate matters. If instead you put filesystems on these partitions and labelled *those*, well, no, LVM goes under filesystems so those filesystems and their labels (and contents) are not long for this world. I have not dealt with an lvm in about 15+ years trying it once when it first came out with a high disaster rating then. 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 what you'll have is not redundant and a device failure will lose at least the contents of that device, possibly more. You pique my curiosity because this is going to be my backup system, but not a syllable about how to do it. You tell me its fine 3 paragraphs up. then tell me lvcreate will wipe it out. I'm asking for answers, not more connumdrums.. Regards, Andy ¹ and while you are there, maybe a post-it note with "I will show the exact command I used any time I write to debian-user" stuck to the top of the display of the screen you use to compose emails would help, because basically every thread you post here lacks that information. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394a5 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GST02TBG221146 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W-part2 wwn-0x5002538f413394a5-part1 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GST02TBG221146-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W-part3 wwn-0x5002538f413394a5-part2 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTD02TB230102 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V wwn-0x5002538f413394a5-part3 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTD02TB230102-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394a9 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTG02TB230206 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V-part2 wwn-0x5002538f413394a9-part1 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTG02TB230206-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V-part3 wwn-0x5002538f413394a9-part2 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T ata-SPCC_Solid_State_Disk_AA231107S304KG00080 wwn-0x5002538f413394a9-part3 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T-part1 ata-SPCC_Solid_State_Disk_AA231107S304KG00080-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394ae ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T-part2 md-name-coyote:0 wwn-0x5002538f413394ae-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T-part3 md-name-coyote:0-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394ae-part2 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E md-name-coyote:2 wwn-0x5002538f413394ae-part3 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E-part1 md-name-_none_:1 wwn-0x5002538f413394b0 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E-part2 md-uuid-3d5a3621:c0e32c8a:e3f7ebb3:318edbfb wwn-0x5002538f413394b0-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E-part3 md-uuid-3d5a3621:c0e32c8a:e3f7ebb3:318edbfb-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394b0-part2 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V md-uuid-57a88605:27f5a773:5be347c1:7c5e7342 wwn-0x5002538f413394b0-part3 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V-part1 md-uuid-bb6e03ce:19d290c8:5171004f:0127a392 wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V-part2 usb-SPCC_Sol_id_State_Disk_1234567897E6-0:0 wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V-part3 usb-SPCC_Sol_id_State_Disk_1234567897E6-0:0-part1 wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e-part2 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W usb-USB_Mass_Storage_Device_816820130806-0:0 wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e-part3 root@coyote:~# I dare you to find the disk that udev calls sdc in the above wall of text. Why can't you understand that I want a unique label for all of this stuff that is NOT a wall of HEX numbers no one can remember. Its not mounted, so blkid does NOT see it. For labeled disk partitions, use /dev/disk/by-label/* paths: 2024-02-14 18:22:34 root@taz ~ # ls -1 /dev/disk/by-label/ sda3_crypt taz_boot taz_root David
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 exactly you are talking about, because as previously discussed there's a lot of different things that you like to call "partition labels". 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. Taking this screenshot was a pita, because the gparted window disappears behind the terminal screen when you click on take another shot, so you have to quit, then find the gparted on the tool bar to bring it back to the front, then move it and the terminal so its not totally hidden. Then rerun spectacle again waste a click bringing it fwd, then 30 seconds later the spectacal instructions finally show up and after 5 minutes of screwing around, finally get the screen shot attached to prove I'm not lieing. The easy and accurate answer is to use a root console, fdisk(8) with --list-details, select the console session, and paste into a mail reply: 2024-02-14 18:09:26 root@taz ~ # fdisk --list-details /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 55.9 GiB, 60022480896 bytes, 117231408 sectors Disk model: INTEL SSDSC2CW06 Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disklabel type: gpt Disk identifier: 816CF78F-AFAD-4F70-AAA0-B08C6CE95AE7 First LBA: 34 Last LBA: 117231374 Alternative LBA: 117231407 Partition entries LBA: 2 Allocated partition entries: 128 DeviceStart End Sectors Type-UUID UUID Name Attrs /dev/sda1 2048 1953791 1951744 C12A7328-F81F-11D2-BA4B-00A0C93EC93B 5A1358F4-23A2-4CF6-A4E2-0A30A0FFC904 ESP /dev/sda2 1953792 3907583 1953792 0FC63DAF-8483-4772-8E79-3D69D8477DE4 B429D984-E32D-4BAE-A7AE-137168B0F0F3 taz_boot /dev/sda3 3907584 5861375 1953792 0FC63DAF-8483-4772-8E79-3D69D8477DE4 83862E6A-7B89-4AB9-A21D-BAEF3AD0F7A3 taz_swap_crypt /dev/sda4 5861376 29298687 23437312 0FC63DAF-8483-4772-8E79-3D69D8477DE4 2A708FD7-F6EE-49D7-8E23-65905BCD6512 taz_root_crypt /dev/sda5 29298688 117229567 87930880 0FC63DAF-8483-4772-8E79-3D69D8477DE4 B8468EA2-B66D-4D13-9FD1-E46AEDA58067 taz_scratch_crypt David
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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, because as previously discussed there's a lot of different things that you like to call "partition labels". If we take that literally that would be a GPT partition name, but you've used this same terminology before and meant a filesystem label. My only question it will those partition names survive lvcreating an 11T lvm out of these and 2 more 2T gigastones. Assuming you meant partition name the first time as well, nothing you do other than a disk wipe or re-name should alter those partition names. 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 /dev/disk/by-id/… which already have that information and are already never going to change. I don't know why you want to complicate matters. 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 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W-part1wwn-0x5002538f413394a5 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GST02TBG221146 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W-part2 wwn-0x5002538f413394a5-part1 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GST02TBG221146-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W-part3 wwn-0x5002538f413394a5-part2 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTD02TB230102 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V wwn-0x5002538f413394a5-part3 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTD02TB230102-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V-part1wwn-0x5002538f413394a9 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTG02TB230206 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V-part2 wwn-0x5002538f413394a9-part1 ata-Gigastone_SSD_GSTG02TB230206-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_QVO_1TB_S5RRNF0T201730V-part3 wwn-0x5002538f413394a9-part2 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T ata-SPCC_Solid_State_Disk_AA231107S304KG00080 wwn-0x5002538f413394a9-part3 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T-part1 ata-SPCC_Solid_State_Disk_AA231107S304KG00080-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394ae ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T-part2 md-name-coyote:0 wwn-0x5002538f413394ae-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302498T-part3 md-name-coyote:0-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394ae-part2 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502Emd-name-coyote:2 wwn-0x5002538f413394ae-part3 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E-part1 md-name-_none_:1 wwn-0x5002538f413394b0 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E-part2 md-uuid-3d5a3621:c0e32c8a:e3f7ebb3:318edbfb wwn-0x5002538f413394b0-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302502E-part3 md-uuid-3d5a3621:c0e32c8a:e3f7ebb3:318edbfb-part1 wwn-0x5002538f413394b0-part2 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V md-uuid-57a88605:27f5a773:5be347c1:7c5e7342 wwn-0x5002538f413394b0-part3 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V-part1 md-uuid-bb6e03ce:19d290c8:5171004f:0127a392 wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V-part2 usb-SPCC_Sol_id_State_Disk_1234567897E6-0:0 wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e-part1 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302507V-part3 usb-SPCC_Sol_id_State_Disk_1234567897E6-0:0-part1 wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e-part2 ata-Samsung_SSD_870_EVO_1TB_S626NF0R302509W usb-USB_Mass_Storage_Device_816820130806-0:0 wwn-0x5002538f42205e8e-part3 root@coyote:~# I dare you to find the disk that udev calls sdc in the above wall of text. Why can't you understand that I want a unique label for all of this stuff that is NOT a wall of HEX numbers no one can remember. Its not mounted, so blkid does NOT see it. If instead you put filesystems on these partitions and labelled *those*, well, no, LVM goes under filesystems so those filesystems and their labels (and contents) are not long for this world. I have not dealt with an lvm in about 15+ years trying it once when it first came out with a high disaster rating then. 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 what you'll have is not redundant and a device failure will lose at least the contents of that device, possibly more. Regards, Andy ¹ and while you are there, maybe a post-it note with "I will show the exact command I used any time I write to debian-user" stuck to the top of the display of the screen you use to compose emails would help, because basically every thread you post here lacks that information. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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, because as previously discussed there's a lot of different things that you like to call "partition labels". 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. Taking this screenshot was a pita, because the gparted window disappears behind the terminal screen when you click on take another shot, so you have to quit, then find the gparted on the tool bar to bring it back to the front, then move it and the terminal so its not totally hidden. Then rerun spectacle again waste a click bringing it fwd, then 30 seconds later the spectacal instructions finally show up and after 5 minutes of screwing around, finally get the screen shot attached to prove I'm not lieing. If we take that literally that would be a GPT partition name, but you've used this same terminology before and meant a filesystem label. My only question it will those partition names survive lvcreating an 11T lvm out of these and 2 more 2T gigastones. Assuming you meant partition name the first time as well, nothing you do other than a disk wipe or re-name should alter those partition names. 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 /dev/disk/by-id/… which already have that information and are already never going to change. I don't know why you want to complicate matters. If instead you put filesystems on these partitions and labelled *those*, well, no, LVM goes under filesystems so those filesystems and their labels (and contents) are not long for this world. I have not dealt with an lvm in about 15+ years trying it once when it first came out with a high disaster rating then. 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 what you'll have is not redundant and a device failure will lose at least the contents of that device, possibly more. Regards, Andy ¹ and while you are there, maybe a post-it note with "I will show the exact command I used any time I write to debian-user" stuck to the top of the display of the screen you use to compose emails would help, because basically every thread you post here lacks that information. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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 there's a lot of different things that you like to call "partition labels". If we take that literally that would be a GPT partition name, but you've used this same terminology before and meant a filesystem label. > My only question it will those partition names survive lvcreating an 11T lvm > out of these and 2 more 2T gigastones. Assuming you meant partition name the first time as well, nothing you do other than a disk wipe or re-name should alter those partition names. 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 /dev/disk/by-id/… which already have that information and are already never going to change. I don't know why you want to complicate matters. If instead you put filesystems on these partitions and labelled *those*, well, no, LVM goes under filesystems so those filesystems and their labels (and contents) are not long for this world. > I have not dealt with an lvm in about 15+ years trying it once > when it first came out with a high disaster rating then. 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 what you'll have is not redundant and a device failure will lose at least the contents of that device, possibly more. Regards, Andy ¹ and while you are there, maybe a post-it note with "I will show the exact command I used any time I write to debian-user" stuck to the top of the display of the screen you use to compose emails would help, because basically every thread you post here lacks that information. -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive
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. WARNING: Probing normally takes from a few seconds to 15 minutes, but it can take longer. Please be patient. Probe finished, recovering blocks... Done Good news: The device `/dev/sdc' is the real thing Device geometry: *Usable* size: 3.64 TB (7814037168 blocks) Announced size: 3.64 TB (7814037168 blocks) Module: 4.00 TB (2^42 Bytes) Approximate cache size: 0.00 Byte (0 blocks), need-reset=no Physical block size: 512.00 Byte (2^9 Bytes) Probe time: 16.04s 2nd drive is a CC of first. So in hex, those two should yield 7.28T of storage.. I have made 1 full partiton om each one, a labeled those partitions as SiPwr_0 and SiPwr_1 I have not attempted to do anything else until the hdwe is fully assembled. My only question it will those partition names survive lvcreating an 11T lvm out of these and 2 more 2T gigastones. Thanks for any advice since I have not dealt with an lvm in about 15+ years trying it once when it first came out with a high disaster rating then. This time the experiment will be on something expendable in its early days. Thank you all. Take care, stay warm and well. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
