Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Newsgroups: alt.os.linux Subject: Re: When I back-up .... Coping my Entire Internal HD to an external HD Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:18:34 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: <5kv5alxctp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <7t5malx9rp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <1vsvalx2ng.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <4eo2blx5q4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 19:18:33 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="44a4b1108e676c0aa88da3562e1aac5f"; logging-data="542672"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192MxfiWDTT0TIH0gbJLmaPTLlS4zNZ2I4=" User-Agent: Ratcatcher/2.0.0.25 (Windows/20130802) Cancel-Lock: sha1:r3YaUYiC2XSeEv33hH4nyPMgh4s= In-Reply-To: <4eo2blx5q4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com alt.os.linux:81168 On Sat, 3/22/2025 8:52 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-03-21 15:16, Paul wrote: >> On Fri, 3/21/2025 6:51 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-03-20 23:01, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:24:07 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2025-03-19 22:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:05:06 +0000, Ant wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> exFAT can handle bigger files and partitions. >>>>>> >>>>>> But it doesn’t offer the option for journalling to guard against >>>>>> filesystem corruption on crashes or improper removal/shutdown, does it. >>>>> >>>>> Perfect. >>>>> >>>>> You do not want journalling on an usb stick or memory card. >>>> >>>> But SSDs are also built on flash memory technology; do you disable >>>> journalling on those as well? >>> >>> No, they have wear levelling, and an expected lifetime with normal usage patterns that is quite long. >>> >> >> Exactly. SSDs algorithm and processing power (I read of an >> SSD yesterday with a five core ARM processor in it), ensures >> that the entire wear life of the device (number of cells times cycles) >> is harvested. USB sticks don't even come remotely close to that. Some >> USB sticks, don't even seem to follow what technical information >> is available for them. Either their flash chips are entire crap >> (should have been thrown out at flash factory), or, something >> is very wrong with the controller. > > I just realized I have an nvme with 72713 hours of use. Probably the first one I bought. > > > === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === > Model Family:     SandForce Driven SSDs > Device Model:     KINGSTON SMS200S3120G > Serial Number:    ... > LU WWN Device Id: 5 0026b7 26901494e > Firmware Version: 608ABBF0 > User Capacity:    120,034,123,776 bytes [120 GB] > Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical > Rotation Rate:    Solid State Device > TRIM Command:     Available > Device is:        In smartctl database 7.3/5528 > ATA Version is:   ATA8-ACS, ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3 > SATA Version is:  SATA 3.0, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s) > Local Time is:    Sat Mar 22 13:14:02 2025 CET > SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. > SMART support is: Enabled > > ... > > SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10 > Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: > ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE >   1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x0032   095   095   050    Old_age   Always       -       0/38481593 >   5 Retired_Block_Count     0x0033   100   100   003    Pre-fail  Always       -       0 >   9 Power_On_Hours_and_Msec 0x0032   017   017   000    Old_age   Always       -       72713h+43m+19.000s >  12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       184 > 171 Program_Fail_Count      0x000a   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0 > 172 Erase_Fail_Count        0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0 > 174 Unexpect_Power_Loss_Ct  0x0030   000   000   000    Old_age   Offline      -       134 > 177 Wear_Range_Delta        0x0000   000   000   000    Old_age   Offline      -       1 > 181 Program_Fail_Count      0x000a   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0 > 182 Erase_Fail_Count        0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0 > 187 Reported_Uncorrect      0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0 > 189 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0000   045   113   000    Old_age   Offline      -       45 (Min/Max 0/113) > 194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   045   113   000    Old_age   Always       -       45 (Min/Max 0/113) > 195 ECC_Uncorr_Error_Count  0x001c   120   120   000    Old_age   Offline      -       0/38481593 > 196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0033   100   100   003    Pre-fail  Always       -       0 > 201 Unc_Soft_Read_Err_Rate  0x001c   120   120   000    Old_age   Offline      -       0/38481593 > 204 Soft_ECC_Correct_Rate   0x001c   120   120   000    Old_age   Offline      -       0/38481593 > 230 Life_Curve_Status       0x0013   100   100   000    Pre-fail  Always       -       100 > 231 SSD_Life_Left           0x0000   094   094   011    Old_age   Offline      -       34359738368 > 233 SandForce_Internal      0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       40546 > 234 SandForce_Internal      0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       14524 > 241 Lifetime_Writes_GiB     0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       14524 > 242 Lifetime_Reads_GiB      0x0032   000   000   000    Old_age   Always       -       8232 > 244 Unknown_Attribute       0x0000   090   090   010    Old_age   Offline      -       20906303 > > > I just run a short test, but it doesn't show - or they count hours differently: > > SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 > Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error > # 1  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      7178         - > # 2  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%      7168         - > # 3  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      7166         - That's amazing, that a 120GB drive is still alive. Some of those die due to firmware issues. it could be a SATA type NVME, rather than a PCIe. The entry in /dev should help you identify what it is listed under. As far as I know, Sandforce did compressing controllers for SATA, and Kingston was their major customer. I could not tell you whether Sandforce was still in business or not. Paul