Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #452905 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-21 10:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-24 08:54 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-21 10:21 -0700
Re: big drives bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-21 13:47 -0400
Re: big drives George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-21 12:42 -0700
Re: big drives dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-21 12:55 -0700
Re: big drives George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-21 13:37 -0700
Re: big drives bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-21 21:51 -0700
Re: big drives George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-22 07:26 -0700
Re: big drives Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-22 03:38 -0700
Re: big drives Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-22 14:23 +0000
Re: big drives David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-22 16:43 +0100
Re: big drives Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-22 18:35 +0000
Re: big drives David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-23 10:24 +0100
Re: big drives Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-23 16:11 +0000
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-23 13:05 -0400
Re: big drives Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-23 17:39 +0000
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-23 21:05 -0400
Re: big drives Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-24 03:01 +0000
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-23 23:09 -0400
Re: big drives Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-24 04:15 +0000
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-24 22:34 -0400
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-22 12:25 -0700
Re: big drives dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-03-22 13:57 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-22 16:03 -0700
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-22 20:29 -0400
Re: big drives tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 04:36 -0700
Re: big drives Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-03-22 08:57 -0400
Re: big drives Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-22 11:59 -0400
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-22 13:23 -0400
Re: big drives Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2017-03-22 16:38 -0500
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-22 20:31 -0400
Re: big drives gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2017-03-23 20:59 -0500
Re: big drives gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2017-03-23 21:00 -0500
Re: big drives Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-03-23 22:21 -0800
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 07:51 -0700
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-22 13:23 -0400
Re: big drives Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-03-23 22:19 -0800
Re: big drives tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 04:26 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 08:38 -0700
Re: big drives Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2017-03-22 16:37 -0500
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 16:07 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-22 16:21 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 16:45 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-22 23:21 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 13:06 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 16:56 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 17:35 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 21:47 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-22 16:19 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 16:50 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-22 17:58 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 21:00 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-22 22:50 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-23 08:27 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-23 12:25 -0700
Re: big drives tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 04:31 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 06:38 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 08:41 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 11:38 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 13:55 -0700
Re: big drives tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 17:14 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 17:41 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 18:00 -0700
Re: big drives Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-23 09:35 -0700
Re: big drives "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-03-23 18:38 -0400
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-23 16:18 -0700
Re: big drives Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-23 18:29 -0400
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-23 18:38 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-23 18:54 -0700
Re: big drives pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 19:16 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-23 19:28 -0700
Re: big drives pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 19:55 -0700
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-23 23:04 -0400
Re: big drives pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 22:00 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 08:46 -0700
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-24 22:38 -0400
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-23 22:22 -0700
Re: big drives pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 23:08 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 00:21 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 09:00 -0700
Re: big drives David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 17:14 +0100
Re: big drives tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 09:19 -0700
Re: big drives David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 17:47 +0100
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 12:01 -0700
Re: big drives Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-24 20:30 +0000
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 14:06 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 11:55 -0700
Re: big drives "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-03-25 04:00 -0400
Re: big drives upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-24 22:18 +0200
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 14:15 -0700
Re: big drives Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-25 13:21 +0200
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-25 07:54 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-25 10:53 -0700
Re: big drives upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-25 23:11 +0200
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-25 15:14 -0700
Re: big drives upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-26 12:18 +0300
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-26 03:33 -0700
Re: big drives Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-26 16:36 -0400
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-26 14:13 -0700
Re: big drives Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-25 21:04 +0200
Re: big drives pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 19:03 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 08:53 -0700
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 12:12 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 14:20 -0700
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-24 22:43 -0400
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 20:10 -0700
Re: big drives krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-24 23:23 -0400
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-24 22:25 -0700
Re: big drives Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-25 13:23 +0200
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-23 19:36 -0700
Re: big drives upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-24 10:14 +0200
Re: big drives Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-24 01:31 -0700
Re: big drives John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-23 16:21 -0700
Re: big drives "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-03-24 08:54 -0400
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oauiut$ec$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453032 |
On 3/22/2017 7:23 AM, Don Kuenz wrote: > Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >> John Larkin wrote... >>> >>> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >>> >>> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >>> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >>> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >>> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >>> >>> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >>> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >>> correspondents. >> >> An old saying, true from the 70s, until nearly 2000: >> There are just two types of hard drives, >> new ones, and full ones. > > The 15K RPM 600 GB SAS RAID5 array in one of my server farms is so full > that it recently grew into a second chassis. That sucks in many ways. > > The root problem is a 600 GB limitation on 15K RPM SAS hard drives that > has been in force for about a decade now. There's been absolutely no > improvement nor innovation in 15K RPM SAS drives over that period of > time. Perhaps a rethink of what "needs" to reside on fast spindles? I reserve my 15K (SCA) drives for those "computations" that need more storage than I can accommodate with fast memory (DRAM) so I only keep 1TB spinning for such uses. [ISTM, IME that 1TB is a "suitable amount" for any particular *single* workstation; but, I distribute applications across many different workstations so YMMV] The "bulk" of my secondary (or, do we now call it tertiary?) storage is slow and cheap to replace (commodity multiterabyte drives) so I can provide as much redundancy as a particular "file" might need (instead of relying on *an* array to provide ALL of it). The downside of big spindles being that you risk losing A LOT with a single failure -- and, investing a lot of time to recover/reconstitute it all! OTOH, there is a disheartening trend towards sluggish 2.5" drives in many machines. Or, fast SSD's -- the whole middle ground has been hollowed out (compromising speed vs. cost) in favor of the extremes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m35bqd-i6g.ln1@coop.radagast.org> |
| In reply to | #453100 |
In article <oauiut$ec$1@dont-email.me>, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >The "bulk" of my secondary (or, do we now call it tertiary?) >storage is slow and cheap to replace (commodity multiterabyte >drives) so I can provide as much redundancy as a particular >"file" might need (instead of relying on *an* array to provide >ALL of it). The downside of big spindles being that you risk >losing A LOT with a single failure -- and, investing a lot of time >to recover/reconstitute it all! > >OTOH, there is a disheartening trend towards sluggish 2.5" drives >in many machines. Or, fast SSD's -- the whole middle ground has been >hollowed out (compromising speed vs. cost) in favor of the extremes. Part of the problem is that in order to continue to increase the capacity of hard drives, the vendors are having to move to "shingled" recording mode. This allows for narrower tracks, but at a significant cost in performance - the tracks partially overlap, and this limits how you can erase and rewrite sectors. As the vendor guys explained it to me several years ago: internally, a shingled drive manages its storage in a way that's analogous to the way an SSD manages flash blocks. Disk sector addresses are virtualized. When the host rewrites a sector, the drive writes the data to the next-available unused sector in one of the shingle zones, and then updates its internal directory and marks the sector's old shingle location "unused". Periodically, the drive controller must read and move all of the "still meaningful" sectors in older shingle zones, then erase these zones and use them for new writes (basically a garbage-collection process). This can and does have a significant impact on performance. Shingled drives are good for storing lots of data - ideally, data which doesn't change too often - but they have a higher performance overhead, and poorer performance predictability than traditional hard drives. Great for DVRs and other media-storage applications, and for archiving; not so great for general-purpose desktop/laptop storage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oauvlv$j8r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453126 |
On 3/22/2017 1:57 PM, Dave Platt wrote: > In article <oauiut$ec$1@dont-email.me>, > Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: > >> The "bulk" of my secondary (or, do we now call it tertiary?) >> storage is slow and cheap to replace (commodity multiterabyte >> drives) so I can provide as much redundancy as a particular >> "file" might need (instead of relying on *an* array to provide >> ALL of it). The downside of big spindles being that you risk >> losing A LOT with a single failure -- and, investing a lot of time >> to recover/reconstitute it all! >> >> OTOH, there is a disheartening trend towards sluggish 2.5" drives >> in many machines. Or, fast SSD's -- the whole middle ground has been >> hollowed out (compromising speed vs. cost) in favor of the extremes. > > Part of the problem is that in order to continue to increase the > capacity of hard drives, the vendors are having to move to "shingled" > recording mode. This allows for narrower tracks, but at a significant > cost in performance - the tracks partially overlap, and this limits > how you can erase and rewrite sectors. > > As the vendor guys explained it to me several years ago: internally, > a shingled drive manages its storage in a way that's analogous to the > way an SSD manages flash blocks. Disk sector addresses are > virtualized. When the host rewrites a sector, the drive writes the > data to the next-available unused sector in one of the shingle zones, > and then updates its internal directory and marks the sector's old > shingle location "unused". Periodically, the drive controller must > read and move all of the "still meaningful" sectors in older shingle > zones, then erase these zones and use them for new writes (basically a > garbage-collection process). > > This can and does have a significant impact on performance. > Shingled drives are good for storing lots of data - ideally, data > which doesn't change too often - but they have a higher performance > overhead, and poorer performance predictability than traditional hard > drives. Great for DVRs and other media-storage applications, and for > archiving; not so great for general-purpose desktop/laptop storage. Exactly. You need to look at *why* you are using the "storage medium" to determine the best way to implement it. If the disk is being used in lieu of RAM (e.g., backing store for VMM) it will *tend* to see much different access patterns and rates than if it is being used as an archive/repository, etc. Backing store sees higher access *rates* as well as more random accesses than, for example, pulling files off an archive (where you can anticipate the next access based on the *previous* one -- esp if any care was taken in laying down the data tracks in the first place!) Hence my use of higher performance drives (and smaller spindles) for "secondary" storage -- relying on gobs of RAM for primary -- and "commodity drives" for true "bulk" storage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 20:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ja56dcps0ackfpl6au1rulq4n0gl9bcflr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #453100 |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:25:57 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >On 3/22/2017 7:23 AM, Don Kuenz wrote: >> Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >>> John Larkin wrote... >>>> >>>> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >>>> >>>> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >>>> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >>>> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >>>> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >>>> >>>> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >>>> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >>>> correspondents. >>> >>> An old saying, true from the 70s, until nearly 2000: >>> There are just two types of hard drives, >>> new ones, and full ones. >> >> The 15K RPM 600 GB SAS RAID5 array in one of my server farms is so full >> that it recently grew into a second chassis. That sucks in many ways. >> >> The root problem is a 600 GB limitation on 15K RPM SAS hard drives that >> has been in force for about a decade now. There's been absolutely no >> improvement nor innovation in 15K RPM SAS drives over that period of >> time. > >Perhaps a rethink of what "needs" to reside on fast spindles? > >I reserve my 15K (SCA) drives for those "computations" that need >more storage than I can accommodate with fast memory (DRAM) >so I only keep 1TB spinning for such uses. Why don't you use SSD for that purpose? If you really need performance, use a PCIe SSD drive. > >[ISTM, IME that 1TB is a "suitable amount" for any particular >*single* workstation; but, I distribute applications across >many different workstations so YMMV] > >The "bulk" of my secondary (or, do we now call it tertiary?) >storage is slow and cheap to replace (commodity multiterabyte >drives) so I can provide as much redundancy as a particular >"file" might need (instead of relying on *an* array to provide >ALL of it). The downside of big spindles being that you risk >losing A LOT with a single failure -- and, investing a lot of time >to recover/reconstitute it all! > >OTOH, there is a disheartening trend towards sluggish 2.5" drives >in many machines. Or, fast SSD's -- the whole middle ground has been >hollowed out (compromising speed vs. cost) in favor of the extremes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 04:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <060b95d5-f7d7-4f30-bf4f-1c2f28768790@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452905 |
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: > I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of > junk. > > I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. > > There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any > more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep > up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could > collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. > > It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives > and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to > correspondents. I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 08:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c5t4dc9rlb4e6gsrb2jj14mno6s5egc08j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #453026 |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT), the renowned tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of >> junk. >> >> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >> >> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >> >> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >> correspondents. > >I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour. > > >NT Could be rather higher if the data is incriminating. --sp -- Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 11:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <95d2e1cd-7381-81bb-4336-9af457c2d0c7@electrooptical.net> |
| In reply to | #453029 |
On 03/22/2017 08:57 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT), the renowned > tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >>> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of >>> junk. >>> >>> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >>> >>> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >>> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >>> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >>> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >>> >>> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >>> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >>> correspondents. >> >> I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour. >> >> >> NT > > Could be rather higher if the data is incriminating. > > --sp > > Or if you do regular backups. Backing up terabyte drives is sssschhhhhhlllllooooooooowwwww. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 13:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bmc5dcdrm0ldks6th4lf5gg0udhs8jd11l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #453044 |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:59:29 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>On 03/22/2017 08:57 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT), the renowned
>> tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of
>>>> junk.
>>>>
>>>> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end.
>>>>
>>>> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any
>>>> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep
>>>> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could
>>>> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow.
>>>>
>>>> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives
>>>> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to
>>>> correspondents.
>>>
>>> I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour.
>>>
>>>
>>> NT
>>
>> Could be rather higher if the data is incriminating.
>>
>> --sp
>>
>>
>Or if you do regular backups. Backing up terabyte drives is
>sssschhhhhhlllllooooooooowwwww.
Of if you ever have to use the files you've saved ("where did I put
the latest...").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 16:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ppadncAiOrk8c0_FnZ2dnUU7-Y2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #453061 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>Or if you do regular backups. Backing up terabyte drives is
>>sssschhhhhhlllllooooooooowwwww.
>
> Of if you ever have to use the files you've saved ("where did I put
> the latest...").
OHH, yes! That's a VERY good point! I've certainly gotten lost a few times
looking for old files. "I KNOW it's in this directory, SOMEWHERE..."
Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 20:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vp56dcpppt1r5sreu8211p1u7g0gop9e41@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #453135 |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:38:43 -0500, Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>
wrote:
>krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>Or if you do regular backups. Backing up terabyte drives is
>>>sssschhhhhhlllllooooooooowwwww.
>>
>> Of if you ever have to use the files you've saved ("where did I put
>> the latest...").
>OHH, yes! That's a VERY good point! I've certainly gotten lost a few times
>looking for old files. "I KNOW it's in this directory, SOMEWHERE..."
Worse is when you grab an old version, thinking that you got the
latest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 20:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <04%AA.138930$qD6.110311@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #453135 |
On 3/22/2017 4:38 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>> Or if you do regular backups. Backing up terabyte drives is
>>> sssschhhhhhlllllooooooooowwwww.
>>
>> Of if you ever have to use the files you've saved ("where did I put
>> the latest...").
> OHH, yes! That's a VERY good point! I've certainly gotten lost a few times
> looking for old files. "I KNOW it's in this directory, SOMEWHERE..."
>
> Jon
>
A good file search engine is a joy to have. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 21:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <05%AA.138965$qD6.19207@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #453135 |
On 3/22/2017 4:38 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>> Or if you do regular backups. Backing up terabyte drives is
>>> sssschhhhhhlllllooooooooowwwww.
>>
>> Of if you ever have to use the files you've saved ("where did I put
>> the latest...").
> OHH, yes! That's a VERY good point! I've certainly gotten lost a few times
> looking for old files. "I KNOW it's in this directory, SOMEWHERE..."
>
> Jon
>
A good file search engine is a joy to have. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 22:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <JV2BA.65033$mB4.43320@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #453044 |
Phil Hobbs wrote: > On 03/22/2017 08:57 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT), the renowned >> tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >>>> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of >>>> junk. >>>> >>>> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >>>> >>>> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >>>> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >>>> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >>>> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >>>> >>>> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >>>> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >>>> correspondents. >>> >>> I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour. >>> >>> >>> NT >> >> Could be rather higher if the data is incriminating. >> >> --sp >> >> > Or if you do regular backups. Backing up terabyte drives is > sssschhhhhhlllllooooooooowwwww. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs > ?? Find a way to make a teraCHOMP..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 07:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nq35dch6n1he5lfboh8ue503eg8ouac8ei@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #453026 |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of >> junk. >> >> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >> >> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >> >> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >> correspondents. > >I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour. > > >NT What is worth some effort is organizing, so you can find stuff. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 13:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5oc5dclnqd25asr2a28c600ohn94vs6eom@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #453035 |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 07:51:28 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > >>On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >>> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of >>> junk. >>> >>> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >>> >>> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >>> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >>> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >>> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >>> >>> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >>> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >>> correspondents. >> >>I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour. >> >> >>NT > >What is worth some effort is organizing, so you can find stuff. And purging obsolete data so it can't be used inadvertently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 22:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7U2BA.65032$mB4.56852@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #453035 |
John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >>> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of >>> junk. >>> >>> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >>> >>> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >>> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >>> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >>> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >>> >>> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >>> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >>> correspondents. >> >> I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour. >> >> >> NT > > What is worth some effort is organizing, so you can find stuff. > > Get and train a border collie...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 04:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ceaf0ff2-d760-4d0e-854a-d3d0d00150fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453035 |
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 14:51:40 UTC, John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: > >> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of > >> junk. > >> > >> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. > >> > >> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any > >> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep > >> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could > >> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. > >> > >> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives > >> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to > >> correspondents. > > > >I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour. > > What is worth some effort is organizing, so you can find stuff. If you don't organise, you probably won't find it. With large amounts of data the organisation needs to work from early on. I know one person that doesn't organise their data and it's complete chaos. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eieadc9bp58v4bm5icnsb1fng2geuoeg6p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #453365 |
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 04:26:06 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 14:51:40 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >> >> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of >> >> junk. >> >> >> >> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >> >> >> >> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >> >> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >> >> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >> >> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >> >> >> >> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >> >> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >> >> correspondents. >> > >> >I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in at something like a penny or 2 an hour. >> >> What is worth some effort is organizing, so you can find stuff. > >If you don't organise, you probably won't find it. With large amounts of data the organisation needs to work from early on. I know one person that doesn't organise their data and it's complete chaos. > > >NT We are very good at organizing and controlling formally-released stuff, the things manufacturing uses to make things, and that engineering uses as the baseline for revs. Manufacturing and test also have work procedures, test procedures, and test results, which are not formally released but are pretty well organized. But every engineer has their own working files on their PC, and maybe interesting data sheets and vacation pictures and such, that have no consistant organization. One of our network drives has public work-in-process folders, one per unfinished project, and they have sort of evolved to have similar structures that everyone mostly uses. That helps disseminate a common structure. We back up that drive regularly, too, so some interesting note or pic is never lost, even though it's not officially released. My rules is that people can dwell in their own personal chaos during development (I even let some people use a VCS) but a released documentation package must be pristine. If anybody finds out something interesting about a part, even as a hand-scribbled note or graph, we put that into the parts data base. Files like BADAMP.TXT. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 16:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ppadncEiOrmhc0_FnZ2dnUU7-Y2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #453026 |
tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of >> junk. >> >> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >> >> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >> >> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >> correspondents. > > I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in > at something like a penny or 2 an hour. Well, the problem is I want physical, off-line backup of important stuff (that's what I've created, not the OS, utilities, etc.) preferably located in a couple places. So, getting rid of excess junk and redundant on-line backups makes some sense, in thaty it makes those CDs, then DVDs, now Blu- Ray backups fit on available media. jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 16:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hq06dcd2kq40eh0tpg4s8pee977cnr48h4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #453134 |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:37:02 -0500, Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote: >tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:21:23 UTC, John Larkin wrote: >>> I just happened to open my recycle bin and there was 42 Gbytes of >>> junk. >>> >>> I remember 256 Kbyte hard drives. A PC with a 10M drive was top-end. >>> >>> There's no point in reducing jpeg sizes, or even deleting stuff, any >>> more. I could never take enough pics, or create enough docs, to keep >>> up with the progress in hard drives. I suppose some people could >>> collect a large number of HD movies and use a terabyte somehow. >>> >>> It's impossible to crack one-time-pad encryption. Giant hard drives >>> and memory sticks make OTP files easy to physically hand off to >>> correspondents. >> >> I estimated the payback of deleting data some time last year. It came in >> at something like a penny or 2 an hour. >Well, the problem is I want physical, off-line backup of important stuff >(that's what I've created, not the OS, utilities, etc.) preferably located >in a couple places. So, getting rid of excess junk and redundant on-line >backups makes some sense, in thaty it makes those CDs, then DVDs, now Blu- >Ray backups fit on available media. > >jon We back up to USB terabyte hard drives and use them as write-once media. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web