From nobody Wed Sep 21 07:33:26 2022 X-Original-To: questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4MXVWs028lz4cZnc for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:33:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ralf-mardorf@riseup.net) Received: from mx0.riseup.net (mx0.riseup.net [198.252.153.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mx0.riseup.net", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MXVWq4SQhz3NBS for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:33:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ralf-mardorf@riseup.net) Received: from fews2.riseup.net (fews2-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.84]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail.riseup.net", Issuer "R3" (not verified)) by mx0.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MXVWn4Vxdz9sPM for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:33:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1663745605; bh=/N1oviYRpVxJYuth7m8LQu4o2mVsWHYYeOgZPjUK+Vs=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=XcGZQHT0QfblF9LXOhkNrAPUyTttjiS4cOS1wBRfMhBl9/hBj/jZJcs9rX74h7X3n sCOdTV3nj9lqtTnU0LFNhJubCXJUuyjf/se0JWxvcqlVIJG5SP/SefiOME4+Wa/4l4 WLol5ejRmLzVKBUEA9HrbB78wuug8BrQICfEZ5G0= X-Riseup-User-ID: FB3D64A6EFB08AEBC2FFBB99DBD085EA1DFAC1FA73ABC1A15DF98FF0538AC580 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews2.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4MXVWm6GS8z1xwy for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:33:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4e864eaefcb7dbed7bdf59d40920a0ab9b964bf5.camel@riseup.net> Subject: Re: disk non-destructive bad-block write/fix? From: Ralf Mardorf To: questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:33:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1f639118-4bb2-acfd-ab8e-e3aab9a79c9e@holgerdanske.com> References: <1f639118-4bb2-acfd-ab8e-e3aab9a79c9e@holgerdanske.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: User questions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4MXVWq4SQhz3NBS X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=riseup.net header.s=squak header.b=XcGZQHT0; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=riseup.net; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ralf-mardorf@riseup.net designates 198.252.153.6 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ralf-mardorf@riseup.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.99 / 15.00]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.96)[-0.963]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.93)[-0.926]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[riseup.net,none]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[riseup.net:s=squak]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:mx0.riseup.net]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[198.252.153.6:from]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16652, ipnet:198.252.153.0/24, country:US]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[riseup.net:+]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[riseup.net:dkim]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 12:00 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > For off-line back up disks, I find mobile racks to be more reliable than= =20 > USB/ Firewire/ eSATA: Hi, I tested a lot of casings and started using casings that have both, USB3 <=3D 5 Gbit/s and eSATA <=3D 3Gbit/s plugs and that are powered by their ow= n power supply. I don't know if everything is powered by the casings' power supply, parts might still be bus powered. The firmware of the casings has got no enforced power saving feature, hence the drives are always spinning, the heads never park, the drives are always ready for action. USB was reliable when using those casings for years and it still is almost reliable. However, "was reliable" + "still is almost reliable" =3D unreliable. In my experiences eSATA <=3D 3Gbit/s is reliable, but way too slow. I never used a mobile rack, but this is something I consider to use in the future, too. Unfortunately I'm using the external drives by rotation not only to backup data from a tower/desktop PC that can hold a rack mount. I'm also using drives with iPadOS, that can only access an external drive via USB. It's not possible to completely abandon USB drives. Once data is saved by USB and verified it's safe. If restoring data from an USB drive fails, it's still possible to remove the HDD from the casing and to connected it by SATA. The casings I'm using provide eSATA, hence I even don't need to open the casing. Fazit: USB drives are a PITA. Most even don't fit the category "was reliable" + "still is almost reliable", they are often completely useless, only working for Windows users, that every now and then move a few GiB and for users that never verify their archives. Many users notice that their archives are corrupted, when they try to restore data from an archive, because they never listed the contend after creating an archive with exit status 0. The exit status 0 from creating an archive with tar doesn't grant that an archive isn't corrupted, it only says that no error was noticed, not that no error happened. Regards, Ralf