Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #267408 > unrolled thread

f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-14 23:10 +0100
    Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-15 01:50 +0100
      Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-15 03:10 +0100
        Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-02-15 03:30 +0100
        Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-15 17:00 +0100
      Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-02-15 03:20 +0100
      Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-02-15 03:20 +0100
        Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-15 04:10 +0100
      Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-15 04:00 +0100
        Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-15 17:20 +0100
          Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2024-02-15 17:30 +0100
          Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-15 21:30 +0100
            Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-15 21:50 +0100
              Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2024-02-15 22:30 +0100
                Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-16 07:40 +0100
                  Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-16 15:50 +0100
                    Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-17 03:20 +0100
                      Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-17 06:50 +0100
                        Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 07:40 +0100
                          Of irrelevant chatter and meta-chatter [was: f3tools vs Silicon  Power 4T drive] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-17 09:50 +0100
                        Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-17 18:50 +0100
                        Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-18 02:30 +0100
                  Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2024-02-16 21:10 +0100
              Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-15 22:50 +0100
              Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-16 02:50 +0100
                Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2024-02-16 13:50 +0100
                  Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-16 16:40 +0100
                Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-16 16:00 +0100
                Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-02-16 21:20 +0100
                  Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-02-16 21:50 +0100
                    Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-02-16 22:10 +0100
                    Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-16 22:20 +0100
                      Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2024-02-17 21:20 +0100
                    Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-17 03:30 +0100
                    Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-17 06:40 +0100
                  Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-17 06:40 +0100
                    Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-18 02:10 +0100
                      Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-18 07:50 +0100
            Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-02-16 21:00 +0100
      Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-15 17:10 +0100
        Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2024-02-15 18:40 +0100
          Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-15 20:50 +0100
            Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-15 22:10 +0100
              Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-15 22:30 +0100
                Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-02-16 07:20 +0100
                  Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-16 15:40 +0100
                  Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-02-16 21:30 +0100
              Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-02-15 23:40 +0100
                Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@debian-user.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2024-02-16 08:50 +0100
              Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-02-16 21:10 +0100
                Re: f3tools vs Silicon Power 4T drive David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2024-02-16 21:10 +0100

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#267435

Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267438

Hello,

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 05:32:34PM +0000, debian-user@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267442

On 2/15/24 14:41, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 05:32:34PM +0000, debian-user@howorth.org.uk wrote:
>> Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267443

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267455

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267473

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267500

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267446

> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267458

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267495

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267496

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web