Bristol and Bath Linux: Maret 2015

Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: SSDs (was Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2)
(Colin M. Strickland)
2. Re: SSDs (was Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2) (Alex Butcher)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 09:57:32 +0000
From: "Colin M. Strickland" <cms@beatworm.co.uk>
To: "Bristol and Bath Linux User Group" <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] SSDs (was Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2)
Message-ID: <7DB89AA3-748D-495E-9B1B-43544FDEFADE@beatworm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

On 3 Feb 2015, at 14:56, Alex Butcher wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015, Fergus Allan wrote:
>
>> SSD's have been incredibly unreliable. Either dirty pages returned
>> or
>> complete failure.
>>
>> I've had 2 crucial SSD's, both failed totally at 3 months old; little
>> red
>> light comes on and no access to any part of the disk. The first also
>> returned dirty pages pretty much from day 1. I've haven't fixed all
>> my
>> corrupted data from that issue. That was a few years ago. We were
>> discussing ordering some SSDs at work and I suggested Crucial even
>> though I
>> don't trust their devices, expecting a positive reaction, but they
>> shot
>> that down as too unreliable.
>
> But of course you've got backups you can restore from, right?!?
>
> We make extensive use of SSDs in our centralised storage at work, with
> no
> particular problems. But, of course, we'll almost certainly be using
> enterprise kit rather than consumer stuff.
>
> When choosing an SSD for a new desktop, amongst the consumer stuff,
> the
> Samsung 850 PRO SSDs struck me as having appreciably better longevity
> ratings (150TBW for the 128GB and 256GB models, 300TBW for the 512GB
> and
> 1TB) than most others and with a warranty (10 years) to match.
>
> <http://www.storagereview.com/demystifying_ssd_endurance>
>

This popped into my INBOX today and seemed relevant to this thread

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

FWIW I've worked extensively with SSD storage alongside spinning disks
at moderate scale on and off for the last few years, as well as moving
to it exclusively on the desktop for the same period.

For my own "anecdata", I would say they're far less prone to sudden
catastrophic failure than traditional HDD, across my sample set of a
couple of hundred devices. For both classes of device, I would posit you
pretty much get what you pay for. They work *differently* from disks,

I suggest you read the numbers carefully, and analyse your own typical
I/O patterns if you actually are looking to improve performance.
Heuristics like 'they're faster but not as reliable', 'swap isn't
useful' etc. will not get you very far. Optimising things you haven't
even measured is a bit of a pantomime.

There's an awful lot of knobs you can twiddle to tune wrt disk and
filesystem performance, if you do care - OTOH glom everything together
into one LVM RAID volume built out of drives with the best reliability
guarantees is far more convenient.

--
Regards,
Colin M. Strickland, cms, 'that guy'.

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 11:23:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alex Butcher <lug@assursys.co.uk>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] SSDs (was Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2)
Message-ID:
<alpine.LRH.2.11.1503151114230.18925@zlgugi.of5.nffheflf.cev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Colin M. Strickland wrote:

> On 3 Feb 2015, at 14:56, Alex Butcher wrote:
>> When choosing an SSD for a new desktop, amongst the consumer stuff, the
>> Samsung 850 PRO SSDs struck me as having appreciably better longevity
>> ratings (150TBW for the 128GB and 256GB models, 300TBW for the 512GB and
>> 1TB) than most others and with a warranty (10 years) to match.
>>
>> <http://www.storagereview.com/demystifying_ssd_endurance>
>>
>
> This popped into my INBOX today and seemed relevant to this thread
>
> http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead
>
> FWIW I've worked extensively with SSD storage alongside spinning disks at
> moderate scale on and off for the last few years, as well as moving to it
> exclusively on the desktop for the same period.
>
> For my own "anecdata", I would say they're far less prone to sudden
> catastrophic failure than traditional HDD, across my sample set of a couple
> of hundred devices.

I'll give credit to your large-ish sample set (larger than my own, at least
- a mere single SSD, so far).

However:

"The Corsair, Intel, and Kingston SSDs all issued SMART warnings before
their deaths, giving users plenty of time to preserve their data. The
HyperX's warnings ended up being particularly premature, but that's better
than no warning at all. Samsung's own software pronounced the 840 Series and
840 Pro to be in good health before their respective deaths. Worryingly, the
840 Series' uncorrectable errors didn't change that cheery assessment.

If you write a lot of data, keep an eye out for warning messages, because
SSDs don't always fail gracefully. Among the ones we tested, only the Intel
335 Series and first HyperX remained accessible at the end. Even those
bricked themselves after a reboot. The others were immediately unresponsive,
possibly because they were overwhelmed by incoming writes before attempted
resuscitation."

<http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead/4>

Hence my warning to back up SSDs more dilligently than (many of us) do our
spinning rust HDDs. Of course, if you already dilligently back up your
HDDs, then SSDs indeed don't need to be treated any differently.

I'm beginning to regret my decision to consider Samsung again after previous
bad experiences with their (consumer) products put them on my "never again"
list. Not to mention:

"In October, Samsung released a tool to address a slowdown in 840 EVO
Sequential Read speeds reported by a small number of users after not using
their drive for an extended period of time. This tool effectively and
immediately returned the drive?s performance to normal levels,? the company
told AnandTech in an email. ?We understand that some users are experiencing
the slowdown again. While we continue to look into the issue, Samsung will
release an updated version of the Samsung SSD Magician software in March
that will include a performance restoration tool."

<http://www.maximumpc.com/samsung_promises_another_fix_840_evo_ssd_performance_issues900>

(which I'm unaffected by, but it's indicative of poor testing by Samsung).

Best Regards,
Alex

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol

End of Bristol Digest, Vol 593, Issue 4
***************************************

Jumat, 13 Maret 2015

Bristol Digest, Vol 593, Issue 3

Rabu, 11 Maret 2015

Bristol Digest, Vol 593, Issue 2

Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Linux Raid (Alex Butcher)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:44:24 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alex Butcher <lug@assursys.co.uk>
To: Huw Morgan <huw@cleevemill.net>
Cc: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Linux Raid
Message-ID:
<alpine.LRH.2.11.1503111031410.22955@zlgugi.of5.nffheflf.cev>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII

Hi Huw

[Cc'ed to the list for education of others, archival and input from anyone
else who feels like giving their two penneth worth]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, Huw Morgan wrote:

> Really sorry to bother you but I've had a few glitches with the Linux raid
> on my mail server and you seemed rather knowledgeable ....
>
> So, I set it up as you suggested ( i.e. a new install, of Ubuntu, letting
> the installer handle the raid set up - I used 3 x 2TB drives, with md0 - 4GB
> Swap, md1 - 1.8TB main partition and md2 -180GB spare partition - I mirrored
> this on drives a & b, designating drive c as a 'spare' (I assumed Linux
> would use drive c as the drive to rebuild the mirror on if either a or b
> failed)

I've never configured a RAID 1 array with a pre-designated spare. I suspect
that's an unusual configuration; spares are usually used in combination with
parity RAID levels.

> - so far so good, all looked okay - webmin showed all three partitions
> clean. I then built my mail server and tested that.
>
> I then powered down and to test the raid , removed the sata cable to drive
> one and rebooted - all good. Powered down again, re-attached the sata cable
> and rebooted. I checked webmin and it said that the raid on a & b was
> degraded and rebuilding - which I assumed was what it should show, so I let
> that run it's course. All good. I then tried removing sata cable from disk 2
> - system still booted fine - so I thought - job done !
>
> A couple of days later I checked webmin and found that the system had
> somehow moved to using drive c only ! (the one I designated as a spare) ???
> I (using console) and mdadm reattached drive b to the raid ( on md0,1&2)
> and it rebuilt itself - hmm ?
>
> Next day, I powered down to insert a bit more RAM, when I rebooted I checked
> webmin and saw that on partition md2, drive b had become detached ( the
> other 2 partitions were still good - i.e. drives c & b ) so, again using
> mdadm I re-attached drive b to md2.
>
> I guess my question is, if a normal reboot manages to detach a drive from
> the raid, can I rely on the raid system at all. Am I/Have I done something
> wrong - system all works fine but if I can't rely on the raid, it seems a
> bit pointless

Reboots shouldn't in themselves cause drives or partitions to drop out of
arrays. So you've probably got a problem of some kind or another.

SATA connectors are horrible, unlatched ones especially. They're prone to be
easily dislodged. They're only rated for 50 insertion cycles. Are you
using cables with latched or unlatched connectors? Are you absolutely
certain that you didn't dislodge a cable (or rather, checked all of them
were firmly connected afterwards!) when fitting the memory?

What make/model of drives are you using? If they're not RAID/NAS-specific
models, then errors can cause extended error recovery behaviour, which can
cause IO request timeouts in the driver, which then in turn cause the RAID
layer to believe the drive has failed completely and so it kicks the
drive/partition out entirely. This is the reason for TLER on
RAID/NAS-specific models.

> I would appreciate your thoughts
>
> Regards
>
> Huw Morgan

HTH,
Alex

>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Butcher [mailto:lug@assursys.co.uk]
> Sent: 05 March 2015 22:15
> To: huw@cleevemill.net
> Cc: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group
> Subject: Re: [bristol] Linux Raid
>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Huw Morgan wrote:
>
>> I'm new to the user group and pretty new to Linux too although I've
> been
>> using it blindly for about 10 years ! I've just built myself a mail
> server
>> on Ubuntu 14.04 using Postfix and Courier and whilst it seems to be
> working
>> well, I have started worrying about data security.
>>
>> To this end I am planning to re-build it with a Raid setup.
>
> Good idea.
>
> But remember that RAID isn't a substitute for backups. Moving on...
>
>> A lot of googling has lead me to consider using Linux raid via mdadm
>> (rather than the 'so-called' hardware BIOS raid built into my HP
> Proliant
>> ML110 G5 server).
>
> Actually, assuming the HP RAID implemention is like Intel's Rapid Storage
> Technology (aka Matrix RAID aka fakeraid), there shouldn't be much
> difference. Essentially, all these fakeraid solutions consist of are a)
> BIOS kludges to allow booting from RAID volumes (and use of DOS, I
> suppose!)
> and b) drivers which implement RAID, even if the OS doesn't (this is
> particularly relevant for Windows where certain RAID levels are only
> available in 'Enterprise' versions).
>
> The most significant advantage of Linux md software RAID is that if the host
> machine fails, you can remove the discs to another Linux machine and
> assemble the array (assuming the kernel has md RAID support compiled in!)
> regardless what make/model of controller(s) they're plugged into.
>
> Proper hardware RAID has the advantage of providing tried-and-tested hotswap
> and battery/flash/super-capacitor backed cache for enhanced performance and
> data integrity. Very spendy!
>
>> Ideally I would like the ability to hot swap drives.
>
> If your BIOS is configured to present SATA drives as AHCI, you /should/ be
> able to hotswap. In practice, I'd avoid it - too many untested combinations
> could lead to surprises!
>
> If you're insistent on hotswap, you'll probably also want hotswap caddies to
> avoid knocking/dislodging/damaging other drives. Something like:
>
> <http://www.startech.com/HDD/Mobile-Racks/Hot-Swap-SATA-SAS-Backplane-RAID
> -Bays-3-Hard-Drive-Mobile-Rack~SATSASBAY3BK>
> <http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A340831031%2Cn
> %3A430435031%2Ck%3Amb996&keywords=mb996&ie=UTF8&qid=1425573816&rnid=340832
> 031>
>
> Spendy!
>
>> My questions centre around - what raid solution should I choose
>
> I've been using Linux md RAID at home for over a decade. It's pretty good
> these days.
>
> I've recently set up an Intel RST array, and it seems broadly equivalent,
> but some of the details of its operation (e.g. how it handles a read error
> on one device in an array) when using the Windows drivers are opaque.
>
> These days, I use and recommend Western Digital Red NAS drives for mirror
> and parity RAID arrays (see the Features->NASware tab of
> <http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=810&utm_source=WD%20Red%2
> 0redirect&utm_medium=collateral&utm_content=en&utm_campaign=product#Tab2&T
> ab9>
> for why - in brief, TLER and command completion). Note that the features of
> such drives work against you in single drive or stripe RAID arrays, so don't
> do that.
>
> I always use hardware RAID with Western Digital RAID Edition drives in
> professional settings.
>
>> and should I use a separate boot disk ?
>
> No need, really, providing you're booting from RAID 1 or RAID 10.
>
>> I wondered if there was some helpful soul in the local Linux
>> community who would spare the time to educate me
>
> <http://linux.die.net/man/4/md> worth reading, also
> <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/RAID>
>
>> Huw Morgan
>
> HTH,
> Alex
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4306/9274 - Release Date: 03/11/15
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4306/9274 - Release Date: 03/11/15
>
>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol

End of Bristol Digest, Vol 593, Issue 2
***************************************

Selasa, 10 Maret 2015

Bristol Digest, Vol 593, Issue 1

Jumat, 06 Maret 2015

Bristol Digest, Vol 592, Issue 3

Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Linux Raid (Huw Morgan)
2. Re: Linux Raid (Martin Moore)
3. Re: Linux Raid (Keith Edmunds)
4. Re: Linux Raid (Alex Butcher)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:24:01 -0000
From: "Huw Morgan" <huw@cleevemill.net>
To: <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: [bristol] Linux Raid
Message-ID: <003b01d05760$ca2dcae0$5e8960a0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi There,
I'm new to the user group and pretty new to Linux too although I've been
using it blindly for about 10 years ! I've just built myself a mail server
on Ubuntu 14.04 using Postfix and Courier and whilst it seems to be working
well, I have started worrying about data security.

To this end I am planning to re-build it with a Raid setup. A lot of
googling has lead me to consider using Linux raid via mdadm (rather than the
'so-called' hardware BIOS raid built into my HP Proliant ML110 G5 server)
Ideally I would like the ability to hot swap drives. My questions centre
around - what raid solution should I choose and should I use a separate boot
disk ? I wondered if there was some helpful soul in the local Linux
community who would spare the time to educate me

Huw Morgan

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4299/9231 - Release Date: 03/05/15

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:47 -0000
From: "Martin Moore" <martinm@it-helps.co.uk>
To: <huw@cleevemill.net>, "'Bristol and Bath Linux User Group'"
<bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Linux Raid
Message-ID:
<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAFLxZtQqo65Oo+1jhlUB9DvCgAAAEAAAAHOknUD1RnNNuN0UHHBssTsBAAAAAA==@it-helps.co.uk>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

mdadm works fine for me - but be aware you'll need to re-partition your
disks (they need to be Linux raid type) to use it so will lose everything.

Martin.

-----Original Message-----
From: bristol-bounces@mailman.lug.org.uk
[mailto:bristol-bounces@mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Huw Morgan
Sent: 05 March 2015 16:24
To: bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
Subject: [bristol] Linux Raid

Hi There,
I'm new to the user group and pretty new to Linux too although I've been
using it blindly for about 10 years ! I've just built myself a mail server
on Ubuntu 14.04 using Postfix and Courier and whilst it seems to be working
well, I have started worrying about data security.

To this end I am planning to re-build it with a Raid setup. A lot of
googling has lead me to consider using Linux raid via mdadm (rather than the
'so-called' hardware BIOS raid built into my HP Proliant ML110 G5 server)
Ideally I would like the ability to hot swap drives. My questions centre
around - what raid solution should I choose and should I use a separate boot
disk ? I wondered if there was some helpful soul in the local Linux
community who would spare the time to educate me

Huw Morgan

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4299/9231 - Release Date: 03/05/15

_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9226 - Release Date: 03/04/15

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:18:14 +0000
From: Keith Edmunds <kae@midnighthax.com>
To: bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
Cc: huw@cleevemill.net
Subject: Re: [bristol] Linux Raid
Message-ID: <20150305201814.42677c4a@ws.the.cage>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Hi Huw

mdadm is the way to go: it simply works. If you've not used it before, I'd
suggest letting your installer set it up (most distros' installers will do
that for you). You don't need a separate boot disk, or even boot
partition. There are some clever things you can do, such as mirroring the
whole disk and layering LVM on top, but stick with what your installer
does.
--
"Soccer is one of those things that the rest of world cares about more
than [Americans] do - you know, like healthcare, education and gun
control" - David Letterman

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 22:15:25 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alex Butcher <lug@assursys.co.uk>
To: huw@cleevemill.net
Cc: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Linux Raid
Message-ID:
<alpine.LRH.2.11.1503052214360.31880@zlgugi.of5.nffheflf.cev>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Huw Morgan wrote:

> I'm new to the user group and pretty new to Linux too although I've been
> using it blindly for about 10 years ! I've just built myself a mail server
> on Ubuntu 14.04 using Postfix and Courier and whilst it seems to be working
> well, I have started worrying about data security.
>
> To this end I am planning to re-build it with a Raid setup.

Good idea.

But remember that RAID isn't a substitute for backups. Moving on...

> A lot of googling has lead me to consider using Linux raid via mdadm
> (rather than the 'so-called' hardware BIOS raid built into my HP Proliant
> ML110 G5 server).

Actually, assuming the HP RAID implemention is like Intel's Rapid Storage
Technology (aka Matrix RAID aka fakeraid), there shouldn't be much
difference. Essentially, all these fakeraid solutions consist of are a)
BIOS kludges to allow booting from RAID volumes (and use of DOS, I suppose!)
and b) drivers which implement RAID, even if the OS doesn't (this is
particularly relevant for Windows where certain RAID levels are only
available in 'Enterprise' versions).

The most significant advantage of Linux md software RAID is that if the host
machine fails, you can remove the discs to another Linux machine and
assemble the array (assuming the kernel has md RAID support compiled in!)
regardless what make/model of controller(s) they're plugged into.

Proper hardware RAID has the advantage of providing tried-and-tested hotswap
and battery/flash/super-capacitor backed cache for enhanced performance and
data integrity. Very spendy!

> Ideally I would like the ability to hot swap drives.

If your BIOS is configured to present SATA drives as AHCI, you /should/ be
able to hotswap. In practice, I'd avoid it - too many untested combinations
could lead to surprises!

If you're insistent on hotswap, you'll probably also want hotswap caddies to
avoid knocking/dislodging/damaging other drives. Something like:

<http://www.startech.com/HDD/Mobile-Racks/Hot-Swap-SATA-SAS-Backplane-RAID-Bays-3-Hard-Drive-Mobile-Rack~SATSASBAY3BK>
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A340831031%2Cn%3A430435031%2Ck%3Amb996&keywords=mb996&ie=UTF8&qid=1425573816&rnid=340832031>

Spendy!

> My questions centre around - what raid solution should I choose

I've been using Linux md RAID at home for over a decade. It's pretty good
these days.

I've recently set up an Intel RST array, and it seems broadly equivalent,
but some of the details of its operation (e.g. how it handles a read error
on one device in an array) when using the Windows drivers are opaque.

These days, I use and recommend Western Digital Red NAS drives for mirror
and parity RAID arrays (see the Features->NASware tab of
<http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=810&utm_source=WD%20Red%20redirect&utm_medium=collateral&utm_content=en&utm_campaign=product#Tab2&Tab9>
for why - in brief, TLER and command completion). Note that the features of
such drives work against you in single drive or stripe RAID arrays, so don't
do that.

I always use hardware RAID with Western Digital RAID Edition drives in
professional settings.

> and should I use a separate boot disk ?

No need, really, providing you're booting from RAID 1 or RAID 10.

> I wondered if there was some helpful soul in the local Linux community
> who would spare the time to educate me

<http://linux.die.net/man/4/md> worth reading, also
<https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/RAID>

> Huw Morgan

HTH,
Alex

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol

End of Bristol Digest, Vol 592, Issue 3
***************************************

Kamis, 05 Maret 2015

Bristol Digest, Vol 592, Issue 2

Rabu, 04 Maret 2015

Bristol Digest, Vol 592, Issue 1

Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. [off-topic] retro-computing : anyone got (access to) an IBM
701 tape drive? (Martin)
2. Re: [off-topic] retro-computing : anyone got (access to) an
IBM 701 tape drive? (John Honniball)
3. Re: Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2 (Andrew)
4. Re: [off-topic] retro-computing : anyone got (access to) an
IBM 701 tape drive? (Peter Hemmings)
5. Re: Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2 (Rayner)
6. Re: [off-topic] retro-computing : anyone got (access to) an
IBM 701 tape drive? (Martin)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:49:44 +0000
From: Martin <inkubus@interalpha.co.uk>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: [bristol] [off-topic] retro-computing : anyone got (access
to) an IBM 701 tape drive?
Message-ID: <1425394184.14663.93.camel@raphael>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi all,
A longitudinal study I am vaguely connected with have discovered
archives on tape for one of these magnificent old beasts:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/701-tape.html

Do you know anyone who could read them? I've suggested IBM's mainframe
division or the national computing museum. Any other thoughts or is it
time to break out the oscilloscope?

http://www.chrisfenton.com/cray-1-digital-archeology/

Cheers,
- Martin

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:33:12 +0000
From: John Honniball <coredump@gifford.co.uk>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] [off-topic] retro-computing : anyone got
(access to) an IBM 701 tape drive?
Message-ID: <54F60C78.3090003@gifford.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 03/03/2015 14:49, Martin wrote:
> A longitudinal study I am vaguely connected with have discovered
> archives on tape for one of these magnificent old beasts:
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/701-tape.html
>
> Do you know anyone who could read them? I've suggested IBM's mainframe
> division or the national computing museum.

I think just about your only chance in the UK is to contact the
National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park. They have connections
with the IBM archive/collection.

> Any other thoughts or is it
> time to break out the oscilloscope?

In California, there's the Living Computer Museum:

http://www.livingcomputermuseum.org/

They're connected with Vulcan, founded by Paul Allen (of Microsoft),
who keep old machines running for exactly your type of problem:

http://www.vulcan.com/

But I suspect they're not cheap.

Do not, under any circumstance, simply try to make a drive and read the
tape(s). They may be suffering from "sticky shed syndrome", whereby the
oxide falls off the tape as soon as it passes over the head. Many big
audio-tape brands sufer from this issue, and it's a major hazard to
old audio recordings. Be prepared for the tape to destroy itself on
the very first reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky-shed_syndrome

--
John Honniball

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:24:05 +0000
From: Andrew <andrewsoltau@gmail.com>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2
Message-ID: <54F62675.90100@1dtv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"

On 23/02/15 16:25, Amias Channer wrote:
> If you want solid and fast look at drives using the sandforce
> chipsets/firmware

My googling suggested that sandforce were pure poison. As I understand
it these have fatally flawed firmware, and it is not a question of if
they will fail but when.

https://communities.intel.com/thread/33953

My only sandforce product died within 3 days of installation.

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20150303/d3f92212/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:48:27 +0000
From: Peter Hemmings <peter@hemmings.eclipse.co.uk>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] [off-topic] retro-computing : anyone got
(access to) an IBM 701 tape drive?
Message-ID: <54F62C2B.6050606@hemmings.eclipse.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

On 03/03/15 19:33, John Honniball wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 14:49, Martin wrote:
>> A longitudinal study I am vaguely connected with have discovered
>> archives on tape for one of these magnificent old beasts:
>>
>> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/701-tape.html
>>
>> Do you know anyone who could read them? I've suggested IBM's mainframe
>> division or the national computing museum.
>
> I think just about your only chance in the UK is to contact the
> National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park. They have connections
> with the IBM archive/collection.
>
>> Any other thoughts or is it
>> time to break out the oscilloscope?
>
> In California, there's the Living Computer Museum:
>
> http://www.livingcomputermuseum.org/
>
> They're connected with Vulcan, founded by Paul Allen (of Microsoft),
> who keep old machines running for exactly your type of problem:
>
> http://www.vulcan.com/
>
> But I suspect they're not cheap.
>
> Do not, under any circumstance, simply try to make a drive and read the
> tape(s). They may be suffering from "sticky shed syndrome", whereby the
> oxide falls off the tape as soon as it passes over the head. Many big
> audio-tape brands sufer from this issue, and it's a major hazard to
> old audio recordings. Be prepared for the tape to destroy itself on
> the very first reading:

Sounds like "Man From Uncle"!

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky-shed_syndrome
>

--
Peter H

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 22:09:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: Rayner <rayner+lug@anarres-worlds.org>
To: andrew@1dtv.com, Bristol and Bath Linux User Group
<bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1503032138160.14182@teal.anarres.org>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Andrew wrote:

> On 23/02/15 16:25, Amias Channer wrote:
> If you want solid and fast look at drives using the sandforce
> chipsets/firmware
>
>
> My googling suggested that sandforce were pure poison. As I understand it
> these have fatally flawed firmware, and it is not a question of if they will
> fail but when.
>
> https://communities.intel.com/thread/33953
>
> My only sandforce product died within 3 days of installation.

It should possibly be noted here that Intel switched to Sandforce
because their previous controller was even worse.

I had an Intel 320 SSD. Worked fine for about a year, then one day
refused to acknowledge that it was more than 8MB in size. All data on
the drive was gone. Google for "Intel SSD 8MB bug", and note that the
alleged firmware fix does not, in fact, stop the drives bricking
themselves.

320 series drives *will* fail completely, irrecoverably, and without
the slightest warning. If you're unlucky enough to have one, back up
everything on it NOW and then pre-emptively smash it with a hammer, or
give it to someone you hate.

I've been very happy so far with my Samsung 840 Pro, however.

Cheers,
Rayner

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:13:10 +0000
From: Martin <inkubus@interalpha.co.uk>
To: bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
Subject: Re: [bristol] [off-topic] retro-computing : anyone got
(access to) an IBM 701 tape drive?
Message-ID: <1425424390.14663.112.camel@raphael>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 19:33 +0000, John Honniball wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 14:49, Martin wrote:
> > A longitudinal study I am vaguely connected with have discovered
> > archives on tape for one of these magnificent old beasts:
> >
> > http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/701-tape.html
> >
> > Do you know anyone who could read them? I've suggested IBM's mainframe
> > division or the national computing museum.
>
> I think just about your only chance in the UK is to contact the
> National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park. They have connections
> with the IBM archive/collection.
>
> > Any other thoughts or is it
> > time to break out the oscilloscope?
>
> In California, there's the Living Computer Museum:
>
> http://www.livingcomputermuseum.org/
>
> They're connected with Vulcan, founded by Paul Allen (of Microsoft),
> who keep old machines running for exactly your type of problem:
>
> http://www.vulcan.com/
>
> But I suspect they're not cheap.
>
> Do not, under any circumstance, simply try to make a drive and read the
> tape(s). They may be suffering from "sticky shed syndrome", whereby the
> oxide falls off the tape as soon as it passes over the head. Many big
> audio-tape brands sufer from this issue, and it's a major hazard to
> old audio recordings. Be prepared for the tape to destroy itself on
> the very first reading:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky-shed_syndrome
>

Awesome! Thanks for the links.

Cheers,
- Martin

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol

End of Bristol Digest, Vol 592, Issue 1
***************************************