Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On 10/01/19 12:28, Mick wrote: > What about 'rsync -H' or 'tar --hard-dereference'? Don't they cater to hard > links in the fs? rsync and cp are both quite happy with hardlinks. They just keep a table of them in memory ... a 3TB disk full of hard links will fill your memory ... Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On 10/01/19 00:55, Dale wrote: > Just how do you do backups? If cp -a and rsync would not work > correctly, what do you use? I'm just curious now. ;-) RAID. I know it's not meant as a backup, and if anything happens to the computer it could take out both drives, but at the moment I have two 3GB drives mirrored, and I do copy stuff to archival DVD. So if anything goes wrong I'm in trouble ... :-) That said, I'm someone for whom things seem to "just work" - until I lend stuff to someone who believes a good bash with a hammer is the fix for any technical gremlin :-) Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On Thursday, 10 January 2019 08:28:24 GMT J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Thursday, January 10, 2019 1:55:59 AM CET Dale wrote: > > Wols Lists wrote: > > > On 07/01/19 10:46, Dale wrote: > > >> From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART > > >> message that a drive is failing, > > > > > > Yup, I have to agree that SMART isn't always reliable, but if you > > > *monitor* it, it should give plenty of warning of the recording medium > > > failing ... > > > > Yep. It may not detect a spindle motor that is about to fail. I'm sure > > it can't detect that lightening is about to strike and the drive get hit > > with a surge either. It can generally tell if the media is failing > > tho. I've read it can detect some components that are starting to fail > > to, not all but some. Still, even tho it can't detect everything, it is > > better than no warning at all. Until something better comes along, ESP > > maybe, it will have to do. ;-) > > > > >> just remove that drive or remove the > > >> whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can > > >> be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to > > >> the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller > > >> drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. > > >> It > > >> did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do > > >> it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how > > >> true > > >> that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. > > > > > > Point is, it works at a different level. Both cp and rsync are NOT > > > guaranteed to copy your filesystem accurately - mine is full of hard > > > links and that will give both those two a hard and nasty time. > > > > > > LVM copies the block device underneath the file system, so it is less > > > efficient in that it will copy 3GB if you have a 3GB partition, but it > > > is far simpler in that it neither knows nor cares what the file system > > > is doing at the next level up. Give a file-system like mine to "cp -a" > > > and it'll bring the system to its knees trying to keep track of where > > > everything is. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Wol > > > > That was what I read but couldn't recall enough to tell how it does it. > > That explains why it can be done while in use to. > > > > Just how do you do backups? If cp -a and rsync would not work > > correctly, what do you use? I'm just curious now. ;-) > > There are backup tools that do handle hardlinks correctly. "app-backup/dar" > comes to mind. I know this as my software-share is filled with hardlinks and > when I restore the backup, they are all still there. > > -- > Joost What about 'rsync -H' or 'tar --hard-dereference'? Don't they cater to hard links in the fs? As a block based backup application partclone is also good. It is very efficient in backing up blocks which are occupied by a fs, but not the rest of the empty space. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On Thursday, January 10, 2019 1:55:59 AM CET Dale wrote: > Wols Lists wrote: > > On 07/01/19 10:46, Dale wrote: > >> From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART > >> message that a drive is failing, > > > > Yup, I have to agree that SMART isn't always reliable, but if you > > *monitor* it, it should give plenty of warning of the recording medium > > failing ... > > Yep. It may not detect a spindle motor that is about to fail. I'm sure > it can't detect that lightening is about to strike and the drive get hit > with a surge either. It can generally tell if the media is failing > tho. I've read it can detect some components that are starting to fail > to, not all but some. Still, even tho it can't detect everything, it is > better than no warning at all. Until something better comes along, ESP > maybe, it will have to do. ;-) > > >> just remove that drive or remove the > >> whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can > >> be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to > >> the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller > >> drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It > >> did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do > >> it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true > >> that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. > > > > Point is, it works at a different level. Both cp and rsync are NOT > > guaranteed to copy your filesystem accurately - mine is full of hard > > links and that will give both those two a hard and nasty time. > > > > LVM copies the block device underneath the file system, so it is less > > efficient in that it will copy 3GB if you have a 3GB partition, but it > > is far simpler in that it neither knows nor cares what the file system > > is doing at the next level up. Give a file-system like mine to "cp -a" > > and it'll bring the system to its knees trying to keep track of where > > everything is. > > > > Cheers, > > Wol > > That was what I read but couldn't recall enough to tell how it does it. > That explains why it can be done while in use to. > > Just how do you do backups? If cp -a and rsync would not work > correctly, what do you use? I'm just curious now. ;-) There are backup tools that do handle hardlinks correctly. "app-backup/dar" comes to mind. I know this as my software-share is filled with hardlinks and when I restore the backup, they are all still there. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Wols Lists wrote: > On 07/01/19 10:46, Dale wrote: >> From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART >> message that a drive is failing, > Yup, I have to agree that SMART isn't always reliable, but if you > *monitor* it, it should give plenty of warning of the recording medium > failing ... > Yep. It may not detect a spindle motor that is about to fail. I'm sure it can't detect that lightening is about to strike and the drive get hit with a surge either. It can generally tell if the media is failing tho. I've read it can detect some components that are starting to fail to, not all but some. Still, even tho it can't detect everything, it is better than no warning at all. Until something better comes along, ESP maybe, it will have to do. ;-) >> just remove that drive or remove the >> whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can >> be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to >> the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller >> drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It >> did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do >> it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true >> that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. > Point is, it works at a different level. Both cp and rsync are NOT > guaranteed to copy your filesystem accurately - mine is full of hard > links and that will give both those two a hard and nasty time. > > LVM copies the block device underneath the file system, so it is less > efficient in that it will copy 3GB if you have a 3GB partition, but it > is far simpler in that it neither knows nor cares what the file system > is doing at the next level up. Give a file-system like mine to "cp -a" > and it'll bring the system to its knees trying to keep track of where > everything is. > > Cheers, > Wol > That was what I read but couldn't recall enough to tell how it does it. That explains why it can be done while in use to. Just how do you do backups? If cp -a and rsync would not work correctly, what do you use? I'm just curious now. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On 07/01/19 10:46, Dale wrote: > From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART > message that a drive is failing, Yup, I have to agree that SMART isn't always reliable, but if you *monitor* it, it should give plenty of warning of the recording medium failing ... > just remove that drive or remove the > whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can > be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to > the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller > drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It > did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do > it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true > that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. Point is, it works at a different level. Both cp and rsync are NOT guaranteed to copy your filesystem accurately - mine is full of hard links and that will give both those two a hard and nasty time. LVM copies the block device underneath the file system, so it is less efficient in that it will copy 3GB if you have a 3GB partition, but it is far simpler in that it neither knows nor cares what the file system is doing at the next level up. Give a file-system like mine to "cp -a" and it'll bring the system to its knees trying to keep track of where everything is. Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
пн, 7 янв. 2019 г. в 12:21, Peter Humphrey : > > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: > > > Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data and > > drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it > > lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on something > > that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the problem, > > using LVM or not. > > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of recovering > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be if it were > in an LVM setup. Yes, you are right. May I also remind everybody that this thread was initially about a problem with Firefox? :)
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Jack wrote: > On 2019.01.07 14:35, Dale wrote: >> >> >> But do you have any other way to get a warning? It may not work every >> time, especially if the spindle motor just up and dies all of a sudden >> but it does detect some errors. It is certainly better than having >> nothing at all. So far, SMART has detected errors and warned me for the >> two drives I've had fail. My neighbor had a drive to fail and it gave >> warnings as well, during boot up but SMART still spit our errors. Thing >> is, the owner ignored it until it wouldn't boot anymore. By that time, >> it was toast. They ran windoze. When SMART does warn, it pays to >> listen. ;-) Mine emails me when any error is reported. >> >> Thing is, a bad drive will always risk the loss of data. Always has. >> Monitoring SMART is better than nothing and generally gives some >> warning. It's not perfect but there is nothing else that does any >> better that I've heard or read about. It's the reason everyone should >> back up data they can't afford to lose. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > I do agree it is better than nothing, and I agree if SMART warns you, > you better listen. I just wouldn't bet the farm (or even a small > garden) on it. I'm coming closer and closer to just mirroring > everything I can't easily recreate. It doubles my disk costs, but > should save me some future grief. > Currently, I have a 3TB and a 6TB drive using LVM. It is mounted as a roughly 8TB partition. I have a external 8TB drive that I backup to, over eSATA at the moment but it has a USB connection as well. I also have SMART set to email me at the first signs of trouble. Hopefully I will get a SMART warning. If not, I hope my backups are up to date. I try to backup at least once a day. The biggest thing I don't want to lose is my emails and some videos. Thing is, I have a plan B. If a drive gives me a warning, I've got a plan C as well. I agree that we shouldn't bet the farm on anything. There is always something unexpected that can happen. Still, backups, surge protection, UPS power, cloud storage for those who can. Those are all options. Just pick what works. Hope for the best but be ready for the worst. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On 2019.01.07 14:35, Dale wrote: Jack wrote: > On 2019.01.07 05:46, Dale wrote: >> Peter Humphrey wrote: >> > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: >> > >> >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data >> and >> >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it >> >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on >> something >> >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the >> problem, >> >> using LVM or not. >> > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of >> recovering >> > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be >> if it were >> > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a >> problem >> > here...] >> > >> > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a >> cautionary tale. >> > >> >> From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART >> message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the >> whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can >> be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to >> the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller >> drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It >> did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do >> it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true >> that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. >> If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is >> important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and hope >> the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a >> failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or the >> data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the >> SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've had >> a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, I >> removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, installed >> both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played >> with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most likely. >> Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. >> >> While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options >> as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. >> >> Just my thinking. >> >> Dale > The only problem with all that is that SMART is far from completely > reliable. I recently had a drive fail, and the resulting fsck on the > next reboot messed up many files. (Not a Gentoo system, although I > don't think that made any difference.) After getting running again, I > did several SMART tests, including the full self-test, and it reported > ZERO errors. A few weeks later, it did the same thing, and shortly > after that, it failed totally. I had done a few more full self-tests > before final failure, and all came back clean. I'd really love to > find out there was something I did wrong in the testing, but I don't > think so. I have not yet completely given up on trying to recover > stuff from that drive, but as time goes on, there is less and less > that I haven't rebuilt or replaced by re-downloading or changing lost > passwords, so it's less and less important. (That was a different > drive from the one I messed up myself, as discussed in another recent > thread here.) > > Jack > But do you have any other way to get a warning? It may not work every time, especially if the spindle motor just up and dies all of a sudden but it does detect some errors. It is certainly better than having nothing at all. So far, SMART has detected errors and warned me for the two drives I've had fail. My neighbor had a drive to fail and it gave warnings as well, during boot up but SMART still spit our errors. Thing is, the owner ignored it until it wouldn't boot anymore. By that time, it was toast. They ran windoze. When SMART does warn, it pays to listen. ;-) Mine emails me when any error is reported. Thing is, a bad drive will always risk the loss of data. Always has. Monitoring SMART is better than nothing and generally gives some warning. It's not perfect but there is nothing else that does any better that I've heard or read about. It's the reason everyone should back up data they can't afford to lose. Dale :-) :-) I do agree it is better than nothing, and I agree if SMART warns you, you better listen. I just wouldn't bet the farm (or even a small garden) on it. I'm coming closer and closer to just mirroring everything I can't easily recreate. It doubles my disk costs, but should save me some future grief.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Jack wrote: > On 2019.01.07 05:46, Dale wrote: >> Peter Humphrey wrote: >> > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: >> > >> >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data >> and >> >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it >> >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on >> something >> >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the >> problem, >> >> using LVM or not. >> > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of >> recovering >> > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be >> if it were >> > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a >> problem >> > here...] >> > >> > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a >> cautionary tale. >> > >> >> From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART >> message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the >> whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can >> be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to >> the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller >> drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It >> did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do >> it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true >> that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. >> If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is >> important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and hope >> the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a >> failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or the >> data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the >> SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've had >> a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, I >> removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, installed >> both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played >> with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most likely. >> Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. >> >> While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options >> as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. >> >> Just my thinking. >> >> Dale > The only problem with all that is that SMART is far from completely > reliable. I recently had a drive fail, and the resulting fsck on the > next reboot messed up many files. (Not a Gentoo system, although I > don't think that made any difference.) After getting running again, I > did several SMART tests, including the full self-test, and it reported > ZERO errors. A few weeks later, it did the same thing, and shortly > after that, it failed totally. I had done a few more full self-tests > before final failure, and all came back clean. I'd really love to > find out there was something I did wrong in the testing, but I don't > think so. I have not yet completely given up on trying to recover > stuff from that drive, but as time goes on, there is less and less > that I haven't rebuilt or replaced by re-downloading or changing lost > passwords, so it's less and less important. (That was a different > drive from the one I messed up myself, as discussed in another recent > thread here.) > > Jack > But do you have any other way to get a warning? It may not work every time, especially if the spindle motor just up and dies all of a sudden but it does detect some errors. It is certainly better than having nothing at all. So far, SMART has detected errors and warned me for the two drives I've had fail. My neighbor had a drive to fail and it gave warnings as well, during boot up but SMART still spit our errors. Thing is, the owner ignored it until it wouldn't boot anymore. By that time, it was toast. They ran windoze. When SMART does warn, it pays to listen. ;-) Mine emails me when any error is reported. Thing is, a bad drive will always risk the loss of data. Always has. Monitoring SMART is better than nothing and generally gives some warning. It's not perfect but there is nothing else that does any better that I've heard or read about. It's the reason everyone should back up data they can't afford to lose. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On Monday, 7 January 2019 16:30:41 GMT Jack wrote: > On 2019.01.07 05:46, Dale wrote: > > Peter Humphrey wrote: > > > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: > > >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data > > > > and > > > > >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where > > > > it > > > > >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on > > > > something > > > > >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the > > > > problem, > > > > >> using LVM or not. > > > > > > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of > > > > recovering > > > > > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be > > > > if it were > > > > > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a > > > > problem > > > > > here...] > > > > > > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a > > > > cautionary tale. > > > > > > From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART > > message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the > > whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can > > be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to > > the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller > > drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. > > It > > did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to > > do > > it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how > > true > > that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really > > efficiently. > > If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is > > important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and > > hope > > the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a > > failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or > > the > > data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the > > SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've > > had > > a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, > > I > > removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, > > installed > > both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played > > with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most > > likely. > > Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. > > > > While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options > > as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. > > > > Just my thinking. > > > > Dale > > The only problem with all that is that SMART is far from completely > reliable. I recently had a drive fail, and the resulting fsck on the > next reboot messed up many files. (Not a Gentoo system, although I > don't think that made any difference.) After getting running again, I > did several SMART tests, including the full self-test, and it reported > ZERO errors. A few weeks later, it did the same thing, and shortly > after that, it failed totally. I had done a few more full self-tests > before final failure, and all came back clean. I'd really love to find > out there was something I did wrong in the testing, but I don't think > so. I have not yet completely given up on trying to recover stuff from > that drive, but as time goes on, there is less and less that I haven't > rebuilt or replaced by re-downloading or changing lost passwords, so > it's less and less important. (That was a different drive from the one > I messed up myself, as discussed in another recent thread here.) > > Jack Depending on the type of errors reported by SMART, by the time you notice errors in tests the risk of losing data is already quite high. Checking deteriorating trends with smartctl won't hurt though. The filesystem problems you were getting may have been coincidental with the impending hardware failure, rather than their cause. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On 2019.01.07 05:46, Dale wrote: Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: > >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data and >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on something >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the problem, >> using LVM or not. > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of recovering > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be if it were > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a problem > here...] > > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a cautionary tale. > From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and hope the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or the data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've had a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, I removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, installed both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most likely. Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. Just my thinking. Dale The only problem with all that is that SMART is far from completely reliable. I recently had a drive fail, and the resulting fsck on the next reboot messed up many files. (Not a Gentoo system, although I don't think that made any difference.) After getting running again, I did several SMART tests, including the full self-test, and it reported ZERO errors. A few weeks later, it did the same thing, and shortly after that, it failed totally. I had done a few more full self-tests before final failure, and all came back clean. I'd really love to find out there was something I did wrong in the testing, but I don't think so. I have not yet completely given up on trying to recover stuff from that drive, but as time goes on, there is less and less that I haven't rebuilt or replaced by re-downloading or changing lost passwords, so it's less and less important. (That was a different drive from the one I messed up myself, as discussed in another recent thread here.) Jack
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: > >> Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data and >> drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it >> lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on something >> that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the problem, >> using LVM or not. > He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of > recovering > data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be if it were > in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a problem > here...] > > Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a cautionary tale. > >From what I've read, that can be overcome. If you get say a SMART message that a drive is failing, just remove that drive or remove the whole LVM setup and use something else until a working drive setup can be made. Once ready, then move the data, if the drive still works, to the new drive. That is basically what I did when I swapped a smaller drive for a larger one. I moved the data from one drive to another. It did it fairly quickly. Someone posted that it may even be faster to do it with LVM's pvmove than it is with cp or rsync. I don't know how true that is but from what I've read, it moves the data really efficiently. If the drive has a very limited time before failure, speed is important. If the drive is completely dead, replace the drive and hope the backups are good. Either way, LVM or not, a failing drive is a failing drive. The data has to be moved if the drive still works or the data is gone if it just up and dies. The biggest thing, watching the SMART messages about the health of the drive. In the past when I've had a drive fail, I got error messages well ahead of time. On one drive, I removed the drive, set it aside, ordered a replacement drive, installed both drives and copied the data over. After I did all that, I played with the drive until it failed a day or so later. Lucky? Most likely. Still, it gave me time to transfer things over. While I get that LVM adds a layer to things, it also adds some options as well. Those options can prove helpful if one uses them. Just my thinking. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 22:13:31 GMT Dale wrote: > Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data and > drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it > lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on something > that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the problem, > using LVM or not. He isn't doing that, though. As I read it, he recounted the tale of recovering data from a failed drive, then imagined how much worse it would be if it were in an LVM setup. [Reported speech and mixed-up tenses causing me a problem here...] Thanks Gevisz, that was interesting. What we used to call a cautionary tale. -- Regards, Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
gevisz wrote: > вс, 6 янв. 2019 г. в 15:57, Peter Humphrey : >> On Sunday, 6 January 2019 11:05:10 GMT gevisz wrote: >> >>> I never used LVM as I believe that it increases the chance of [losing] >>> all the information on hard disks. >> Interesting. Would you like to explain why? > I had once a 40GB HDD failure and I have managed to restore > all the data on it by repeatedly putting it in a fridge what enabled > me to dd its partions for about 10 minutes or so. But in that case > the partitions were relatively small and the disk mounted quick > and easy. Now imagine that have failed a 4TB HDD disk that is > part of much bigger LVM volume. Moreover, suppose that it is > impossible to restore that part of the failed HDD disk that indexes > all that LVM volume... > > The thing to remember tho, the drive failed. That is why you had the problem. That isn't the fault of LVM. That is a defective drive. From what I've read, you can have a drive fail, remove that drive and lose the data from it but keep what is on other drives. If you have all your files on a single drive with no LVM and that drives fails suddenly, what is different? The important part, monitoring your drives and at the first sign of problems, replace the drive. That is true whether you use LVM or not. Right? I might add, long before I started using LVM, I've had drives to fail and either had to backup real quick or lose data. While LVM can cause a problem, I suspect it is rare if managed properly. For me, and many others, it adds many benefits to managing data. Just recently, my home partition was starting to fill up. It was made up of two 3TB drives. I replaced one of the 3TB drives with a 6TB drive. Because I use LVM, it was painless and easy. If I hadn't been using LVM, like in the past, it would have been much harder to do. I might add, I would have had to replace with larger drives, which also cost a good bit more. Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data and drives than it does risk. The biggest thing, placing blame where it lies. Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on something that wasn't the root of the problem. The dying drive was the problem, using LVM or not. Back to Firefox, I recently did a emerge -e world with no change. It still does it on occasion. So, it's not some weird quirk where something needs to be rebuilt after a upgrade. Still a annoying problem. Thinking on that firefox-bin package next. :/ Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 17:07:35 GMT gevisz wrote: > вс, 6 янв. 2019 г. в 15:57, Peter Humphrey : > > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 11:05:10 GMT gevisz wrote: > > > I never used LVM as I believe that it increases the chance of [losing] > > > all the information on hard disks. > > > > Interesting. Would you like to explain why? > > I had once a 40GB HDD failure and I have managed to restore > all the data on it by repeatedly putting it in a fridge what enabled > me to dd its partions for about 10 minutes or so. But in that case > the partitions were relatively small and the disk mounted quick > and easy. Now imagine that have failed a 4TB HDD disk that is > part of much bigger LVM volume. Moreover, suppose that it is > impossible to restore that part of the failed HDD disk that indexes > all that LVM volume... There's also the probability of corruption of the LVM table on the disk. Arguably a small probability, but nevertheless one additional reference table for things to go wrong, should Murphy and his law have anything to do with it. I also prefer to keep disks with critical data as simple as possible, plan ahead of applying partitioning schemes for particular use case requirements and consequently I do not use LVM. On the other hand, there are use cases where LVM can be invaluable - ill defined or ever changing disk space requirements where over-provisioning of spare space can be expensive. So as with most things in life it is a balancing act. ;-) -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
вс, 6 янв. 2019 г. в 15:57, Peter Humphrey : > > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 11:05:10 GMT gevisz wrote: > > > I never used LVM as I believe that it increases the chance of [losing] > > all the information on hard disks. > > Interesting. Would you like to explain why? I had once a 40GB HDD failure and I have managed to restore all the data on it by repeatedly putting it in a fridge what enabled me to dd its partions for about 10 minutes or so. But in that case the partitions were relatively small and the disk mounted quick and easy. Now imagine that have failed a 4TB HDD disk that is part of much bigger LVM volume. Moreover, suppose that it is impossible to restore that part of the failed HDD disk that indexes all that LVM volume...
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 11:05:10 GMT gevisz wrote: > I never used LVM as I believe that it increases the chance of [losing] > all the information on hard disks. Interesting. Would you like to explain why? -- Regards, Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
вс, 6 янв. 2019 г. в 02:54, Dale : > > gevisz wrote: > > вт, 1 янв. 2019 г. в 06:45, Dale : > >> With the newer Firefox versions, I've noticed something weird about > >> downloading files. Usually these are videos using a download helper for > >> videos and sometimes it is a normal file download, depends on the site. > >> Either way, I get something odd at times. So far, I've yet to see any > >> rhyme or reason to it. I can't figure out what triggers it. This is > >> what it does. I start a download, either using a video helper add on or > >> downloading as a file. I give it a name and location and it shows in > >> the download window that it is downloading. However, if I go to the > >> directory where it should be, sometimes nothing shows up. It will > >> complete the download and then show that it failed after finishing the > >> download. However, if I notice that it is not in the directory where it > >> should be and I go back to the download window, hit pause and then > >> resume, it starts over from the beginning and then shows up in the > >> directory where it should be. Most of the time, it shows up that it is > >> downloading and it is where it should be without be doing anything > >> further but sometimes, it doesn't. > >> > >> One other thing that it does on rare occasions. It will show it is > >> downloading for a good while, sometimes more than half way, then > >> disappear in the directory as if it is deleted but still show that it is > >> downloading in the download window. I've only seen it do that a few > >> times but it is annoying to look and make sure it is downloading a file > >> that takes a hour or more only to have it disappear part way through. > >> > >> This started with the new multi-process versions or whatever it is > >> called of Firefox. It acts like a permissions problem or something to > >> me. It either thinks it doesn't have write permissions at the start or > >> thinks it loses them part way through or something. If it only did this > >> when using the add on, I'd think it is that but it also does it when I'm > >> downloading as a file with no add on being used. Either way, I'm not > >> sure what to look into really. I'm not even sure what to google for to > >> see if anyone else is noticing this. What does one call this problem??? > >> > > I experience similar problems with downloading files in Firefox for quite > > a long time. I cannot say for how long time exactly, but estimating it > > from memory: for about a few years. Yes, t is quite annoying but > > currently I have already got the habit to open download manager > > every time I download a file, stop downloading it and then restart again. > > (I even try to do the same automatically while using other web browsers > > like chromium or google-chrome. :) > > > > However, I believe that it has nothing to do with "the newer Firefox > > versions" > > as I still use Firefox version 52.9.0 (compiled without clang) and all these > > troubles with downloading files started even on much more earlier versions. > > > > Interesting. I don't recall it ever doing this with the older versions > but maybe whatever it is is just now hitting me for some reason. That's > the thing about random problems, they are random. Still, at least I > know it is not just me. > > Since you mention chromium etc, that makes me wonder if it is the > browser at all. Could it be something else? A permissions issue > maybe? Some sort of file system problem? Could it be a common package > that these browsers depend on? Which leads to this question. Do you > use LVM or ext4 or both? I use LVM and ext4 here. Odds are, we both > have the same dependencies installed so not sure how to figure out if it > is one of those. I should clarify: I experience the said download problem only in Firefox, never with Chromium or Google-chrome. I have mentioned Chromium and Google-chrome only to indicate that my habit of opening download manager became so unconscious that I try to open download manager even in Chromium and Google-chrome, when it is not needed. Luckily, the hot keys for opening download manager in Firefox and Chromium/Google-chrome do not coincide, so I just end up opening something else and then realize that download manager is not needed. I never used LVM as I believe that it increases the chance of loosing all the information on hard disks. And yes, I do use ext4 as it is the default file system for Linux. P.S. Most often, I download html pages and have noticed that the said download problem does not arise when I download html pages in the so called "read" view, that is after pressing that little book icon in the Firefox URL address line, whereas downloading the same pages from a usual default view, with a lot of additional files, almost sure leads to the said download problem.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
gevisz wrote: > вт, 1 янв. 2019 г. в 06:45, Dale : >> With the newer Firefox versions, I've noticed something weird about >> downloading files. Usually these are videos using a download helper for >> videos and sometimes it is a normal file download, depends on the site. >> Either way, I get something odd at times. So far, I've yet to see any >> rhyme or reason to it. I can't figure out what triggers it. This is >> what it does. I start a download, either using a video helper add on or >> downloading as a file. I give it a name and location and it shows in >> the download window that it is downloading. However, if I go to the >> directory where it should be, sometimes nothing shows up. It will >> complete the download and then show that it failed after finishing the >> download. However, if I notice that it is not in the directory where it >> should be and I go back to the download window, hit pause and then >> resume, it starts over from the beginning and then shows up in the >> directory where it should be. Most of the time, it shows up that it is >> downloading and it is where it should be without be doing anything >> further but sometimes, it doesn't. >> >> One other thing that it does on rare occasions. It will show it is >> downloading for a good while, sometimes more than half way, then >> disappear in the directory as if it is deleted but still show that it is >> downloading in the download window. I've only seen it do that a few >> times but it is annoying to look and make sure it is downloading a file >> that takes a hour or more only to have it disappear part way through. >> >> This started with the new multi-process versions or whatever it is >> called of Firefox. It acts like a permissions problem or something to >> me. It either thinks it doesn't have write permissions at the start or >> thinks it loses them part way through or something. If it only did this >> when using the add on, I'd think it is that but it also does it when I'm >> downloading as a file with no add on being used. Either way, I'm not >> sure what to look into really. I'm not even sure what to google for to >> see if anyone else is noticing this. What does one call this problem??? >> > I experience similar problems with downloading files in Firefox for quite > a long time. I cannot say for how long time exactly, but estimating it > from memory: for about a few years. Yes, t is quite annoying but > currently I have already got the habit to open download manager > every time I download a file, stop downloading it and then restart again. > (I even try to do the same automatically while using other web browsers > like chromium or google-chrome. :) > > However, I believe that it has nothing to do with "the newer Firefox versions" > as I still use Firefox version 52.9.0 (compiled without clang) and all these > troubles with downloading files started even on much more earlier versions. > > Interesting. I don't recall it ever doing this with the older versions but maybe whatever it is is just now hitting me for some reason. That's the thing about random problems, they are random. Still, at least I know it is not just me. Since you mention chromium etc, that makes me wonder if it is the browser at all. Could it be something else? A permissions issue maybe? Some sort of file system problem? Could it be a common package that these browsers depend on? Which leads to this question. Do you use LVM or ext4 or both? I use LVM and ext4 here. Odds are, we both have the same dependencies installed so not sure how to figure out if it is one of those. At least I'm not alone in this, although I hate that you are having this issue too. It is annoying. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
вт, 1 янв. 2019 г. в 06:45, Dale : > > With the newer Firefox versions, I've noticed something weird about > downloading files. Usually these are videos using a download helper for > videos and sometimes it is a normal file download, depends on the site. > Either way, I get something odd at times. So far, I've yet to see any > rhyme or reason to it. I can't figure out what triggers it. This is > what it does. I start a download, either using a video helper add on or > downloading as a file. I give it a name and location and it shows in > the download window that it is downloading. However, if I go to the > directory where it should be, sometimes nothing shows up. It will > complete the download and then show that it failed after finishing the > download. However, if I notice that it is not in the directory where it > should be and I go back to the download window, hit pause and then > resume, it starts over from the beginning and then shows up in the > directory where it should be. Most of the time, it shows up that it is > downloading and it is where it should be without be doing anything > further but sometimes, it doesn't. > > One other thing that it does on rare occasions. It will show it is > downloading for a good while, sometimes more than half way, then > disappear in the directory as if it is deleted but still show that it is > downloading in the download window. I've only seen it do that a few > times but it is annoying to look and make sure it is downloading a file > that takes a hour or more only to have it disappear part way through. > > This started with the new multi-process versions or whatever it is > called of Firefox. It acts like a permissions problem or something to > me. It either thinks it doesn't have write permissions at the start or > thinks it loses them part way through or something. If it only did this > when using the add on, I'd think it is that but it also does it when I'm > downloading as a file with no add on being used. Either way, I'm not > sure what to look into really. I'm not even sure what to google for to > see if anyone else is noticing this. What does one call this problem??? > I experience similar problems with downloading files in Firefox for quite a long time. I cannot say for how long time exactly, but estimating it from memory: for about a few years. Yes, t is quite annoying but currently I have already got the habit to open download manager every time I download a file, stop downloading it and then restart again. (I even try to do the same automatically while using other web browsers like chromium or google-chrome. :) However, I believe that it has nothing to do with "the newer Firefox versions" as I still use Firefox version 52.9.0 (compiled without clang) and all these troubles with downloading files started even on much more earlier versions.
[gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Howdy, With the newer Firefox versions, I've noticed something weird about downloading files. Usually these are videos using a download helper for videos and sometimes it is a normal file download, depends on the site. Either way, I get something odd at times. So far, I've yet to see any rhyme or reason to it. I can't figure out what triggers it. This is what it does. I start a download, either using a video helper add on or downloading as a file. I give it a name and location and it shows in the download window that it is downloading. However, if I go to the directory where it should be, sometimes nothing shows up. It will complete the download and then show that it failed after finishing the download. However, if I notice that it is not in the directory where it should be and I go back to the download window, hit pause and then resume, it starts over from the beginning and then shows up in the directory where it should be. Most of the time, it shows up that it is downloading and it is where it should be without be doing anything further but sometimes, it doesn't. One other thing that it does on rare occasions. It will show it is downloading for a good while, sometimes more than half way, then disappear in the directory as if it is deleted but still show that it is downloading in the download window. I've only seen it do that a few times but it is annoying to look and make sure it is downloading a file that takes a hour or more only to have it disappear part way through. This started with the new multi-process versions or whatever it is called of Firefox. It acts like a permissions problem or something to me. It either thinks it doesn't have write permissions at the start or thinks it loses them part way through or something. If it only did this when using the add on, I'd think it is that but it also does it when I'm downloading as a file with no add on being used. Either way, I'm not sure what to look into really. I'm not even sure what to google for to see if anyone else is noticing this. What does one call this problem??? Some info to follow. [ebuild R ~] www-client/firefox-64.0::gentoo USE="dbus gmp-autoupdate screenshot startup-notification system-harfbuzz system-jpeg system-libevent system-libvpx system-sqlite -bindist -clang -custom-cflags -custom-optimization -debug -eme-free -geckodriver -hardened -hwaccel -jack -lto (-neon) -pulseaudio (-selinux) -system-icu -test -wifi" L10N="-ach -af -an -ar -as -ast -az -bg -bn-BD -bn-IN -br -bs -ca -cak -cs -cy -da -de -dsb -el -en-GB -en-ZA -eo -es-AR -es-CL -es-ES -es-MX -et -eu -fa -ff -fi -fr -fy -ga -gd -gl -gn -gu -he -hi -hr -hsb -hu -hy -id -is -it -ja -ka -kab -kk -km -kn -ko -lij -lt -lv -mai -mk -ml -mr -ms -nb -nl -nn -or -pa -pl -pt-BR -pt-PT -rm -ro -ru -si -sk -sl -son -sq -sr -sv -ta -te -th -tr -uk -uz -vi -xh -zh-CN -zh-TW" Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/Home2-Home2 8.1T 3.9T 4.2T 49% /home As one can see, not a space problem, thanks to all the help on this list and LVM for that. ;-) Anyone else seeing this? Anyone have any idea what could cause this? Bug? Some nifty new feature that breaks things?? Some USE flag that needs to be changed? Any other ideas? Thanks. Dale :-) :-)
