On 03/12/2023 20:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-12-03 16:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 03/12/2023 12:00, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-02, Rich wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Some limited observations.
>>
>> Power for full size disk drives cannot be reliably supplied by
>> USB<->SATA adapters alone. You need a powered hub of some sort. 2.5"
>> and SSDs however are possible.
>>
>> I am using these, with no issues.
>>
>> https://thepihut.com/products/ssd-to-usb-3-0-cable-for-raspberry-pi
>
> How about smartctl, does it fully work?
>

# smartctl -a /dev/sda
smartctl 7.3 2022-02-28 r5338 [aarch64-linux-6.1.0-rpi4-rpi-v8] (local
build)
Copyright (C) 2002-22, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family: Crucial/Micron Client SSDs
Device Model: CT2000BX500SSD1
Serial Number: 2245E682345E
LU WWN Device Id: 5 00a075 1e682345e
Firmware Version: M6CR061
User Capacity: 2,000,398,934,016 bytes [2.00 TB]
Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical
Rotation Rate: Solid State Device
Form Factor: 2.5 inches
TRIM Command: Available
Device is: In smartctl database 7.3/5319
ATA Version is: ACS-3 T13/2161-D revision 4
SATA Version is: SATA 3.3, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)
Local Time is: Sun Dec 3 20:55:06 2023 GMT
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled

=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED

General SMART Values:
Offline data collection status: (0x00) Offline data collection activity
was never started.
Auto Offline Data Collection: Disabled.
Self-test execution status: ( 0) The previous self-test routine
completed
without error or no self-test has ever
been run.
Total time to complete Offline
data collection: ( 120) seconds.
Offline data collection
capabilities: (0x11) SMART execute Offline immediate.
No Auto Offline data collection support.
Suspend Offline collection upon new
command.
No Offline surface scan supported.
Self-test supported.
No Conveyance Self-test supported.
No Selective Self-test supported.
SMART capabilities: (0x0002) Does not save SMART data before
entering power-saving mode.
Supports SMART auto save timer.
Error logging capability: (0x01) Error logging supported.
General Purpose Logging supported.
Short self-test routine
recommended polling time: ( 2) minutes.
Extended self-test routine
recommended polling time: ( 10) minutes.

SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x002f 100 100 000 Pre-fail
Always - 0
5 Reallocate_NAND_Blk_Cnt 0x0032 100 100 010 Old_age
Always - 0
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age
Always - 847
12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age
Always - 12
171 Program_Fail_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
172 Erase_Fail_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
173 Ave_Block-Erase_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 4
174 Unexpect_Power_Loss_Ct 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 7
180 Unused_Reserve_NAND_Blk 0x0033 100 100 000 Pre-fail Always
- 47
183 SATA_Interfac_Downshift 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
184 Error_Correction_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 074 055 000 Old_age Always
- 26 (Min/Max 18/45)
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
197 Current_Pending_ECC_Cnt 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0030 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
202 Percent_Lifetime_Remain 0x0030 100 100 001 Old_age
Offline - 0
206 Write_Error_Rate 0x000e 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
210 Success_RAIN_Recov_Cnt 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
246 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 3101824575
247 Host_Program_Page_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 96932017
248 FTL_Program_Page_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 193536000
249 Unkn_CrucialMicron_Attr 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
251 Unkn_CrucialMicron_Attr 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 3244164695
252 Unkn_CrucialMicron_Attr 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
253 Unkn_CrucialMicron_Attr 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0

SMART Error Log not supported

SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
No self-tests have been logged. [To run self-tests, use: smartctl -t]

Selective Self-tests/Logging not supported
........
Looks like its working, which is nice. I forgot to install it so thanks
for reminding me to

--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On 2023-12-03 21:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 03/12/2023 20:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-12-03 16:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2023 12:00, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-02, Rich wrote:
>>
>> ...

>>> I am using these, with no issues.
>>>
>>> https://thepihut.com/products/ssd-to-usb-3-0-cable-for-raspberry-pi
>>
>> How about smartctl, does it fully work?
>>
>
>  # smartctl -a /dev/sda
> smartctl 7.3 2022-02-28 r5338 [aarch64-linux-6.1.0-rpi4-rpi-v8] (local
> build)
> Copyright (C) 2002-22, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
>
> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
> Model Family:     Crucial/Micron Client SSDs

....

> SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16
> Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED
> WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>   1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x002f   100   100   000    Pre-fail
> Always       -       0
....
> 247 Host_Program_Page_Count 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always
>       -       96932017
> 248 FTL_Program_Page_Count  0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always
>       -       193536000
> 249 Unkn_CrucialMicron_Attr 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always
>       -       0
> 251 Unkn_CrucialMicron_Attr 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always
>       -       3244164695
> 252 Unkn_CrucialMicron_Attr 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always
>       -       0
> 253 Unkn_CrucialMicron_Attr 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always
>       -       0
>
> SMART Error Log not supported

No error log?

>
> SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
> No self-tests have been logged.  [To run self-tests, use: smartctl -t]
>
> Selective Self-tests/Logging not supported
> .......
> Looks like its working, which is nice. I forgot to install it so thanks
> for reminding me to

That's very nice, because some do not work with smartctl.

ASMedia ASM1153E/ASM225 chip, it says.

In my case, I need things with a somewhat longer cable — I'm trying to
build a raid array, with rotating rust, so I also have to add power
supplies.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

with <ukhq8a$2re4f$1@dont-email.me> Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2023-12-02, Rich wrote:

*SKIP* [ 14 lines 2 levels deep]
> * Although in the future I should probably get a PATA one too, for
> easier checking of older drives.

Avoid cheapest at all cost, avoid (so called) enclosures. Anything else
is pure chance.

First time I'd disconnected my first usb-*ata adapter I'd went with
logic. Second time I'd read instructions -- usb host on motherboard was
no more.

Also, my first adapter was flipping random bits -- I've logs, I can't
see logic in those flips.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:

>> SMART Error Log not supported
>
> No error log?

The output mentioned earlier error logging is supported. I think some
SSDs support only the extended error log which one could see with
smartctl -l xerror /dev/sda

On 03/12/23 10:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 02/12/2023 17:24, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> Don't use badblocks on ssd drives.
>
> Indeed. Moist of these low level storage control tools are
> now replicated inside the SSD controller itself (e.g.
> badblocks), or are rendered unnecessary by the actual
> storage architecture( defragmentation)
>
> If there is a bad ram block, the SSD controller itself will
> have flagged that already.
> With read/write seek times being essentially zero, there is
> no point in defragmenting at the computer level. The wear
> levelling will already be rearranging where everything is
> stored anyway.
>
> The only thing the SSD needs is a trim command now and then.
>

who and when issues such a command ? I am asking since I
cannot remember of having typed it anytime :(

>

--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
MarioCPPP

MarioCCCP <NoliMihiFrangereMentulam@libero.it> wrote:
> On 03/12/23 10:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 02/12/2023 17:24, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>> Don't use badblocks on ssd drives.
>>
>> Indeed. Moist of these low level storage control tools are
>> now replicated inside the SSD controller itself (e.g.
>> badblocks), or are rendered unnecessary by the actual
>> storage architecture( defragmentation)
>>
>> If there is a bad ram block, the SSD controller itself will
>> have flagged that already.
>> With read/write seek times being essentially zero, there is
>> no point in defragmenting at the computer level. The wear
>> levelling will already be rearranging where everything is
>> stored anyway.
>>
>> The only thing the SSD needs is a trim command now and then.
>
> who and when issues such a command ? I am asking since I cannot
> remember of having typed it anytime :(

The proper 'who' is the filesystem, the proper when is when the
filesystem deallocates blocks due to deletion. The point of a 'trim'
command to an SSD is to let it know that the higher levels are finished
useing differnt blocks so it can go about doing its cleanup in the
background.

On 2023-12-05 14:42, MarioCCCP wrote:
> On 03/12/23 10:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 02/12/2023 17:24, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>> Don't use badblocks on ssd drives.
>>
>> Indeed. Moist of these low level storage control tools are now
>> replicated inside the SSD controller itself (e.g. badblocks), or are
>> rendered unnecessary by the actual storage architecture( defragmentation)
>>
>> If there is a bad ram block, the SSD controller itself will have
>> flagged that already.
>> With read/write seek times being essentially zero, there is no point
>> in defragmenting at the computer level. The wear levelling will
>> already be rearranging where everything is stored anyway.
>>
>> The only thing the SSD needs is a trim command now and then.
>>
>
> who and when issues such a command ? I am asking since I cannot remember
> of having typed it anytime :(

It can be a mount option or a cron job or systemd timer.

Laicolasse:~ # systemctl status fstrim.timer
● fstrim.timer - Discard unused blocks once a week
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/fstrim.timer; enabled;
vendor preset: enabled)
Active: active (waiting) since Sat 2023-12-02 09:15:04 CET; 3 days ago
Trigger: Mon 2023-12-11 01:34:19 CET; 5 days left
Triggers: ● fstrim.service
Docs: man:fstrim

Dec 02 09:15:04 Laicolasse.valinor systemd[1]: Started Discard unused
blocks once a week.
Laicolasse:~ #

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 05/12/2023 13:42, MarioCCCP wrote:
> On 03/12/23 10:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 02/12/2023 17:24, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>> Don't use badblocks on ssd drives.
>>
>> Indeed. Moist of these low level storage control tools are now
>> replicated inside the SSD controller itself (e.g. badblocks), or are
>> rendered unnecessary by the actual storage architecture( defragmentation)
>>
>> If there is a bad ram block, the SSD controller itself will have
>> flagged that already.
>> With read/write seek times being essentially zero, there is no point
>> in defragmenting at the computer level. The wear levelling will
>> already be rearranging where everything is stored anyway.
>>
>> The only thing the SSD needs is a trim command now and then.
>>
>
> who and when issues such a command ? I am asking since I cannot remember
> of having typed it anytime :(
>

I think that most linuxes issue that command under cron by default these
days.

e.g on my pi4B

$ systemctl status fstrim.timer
● fstrim.timer - Discard unused blocks once a week
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/fstrim.timer; enabled; preset:
enabled)
Active: active (waiting) since Fri 2023-12-01 08:03:15 GMT; 4 days ago
Trigger: Mon 2023-12-11 00:11:30 GMT; 5 days left
Triggers: ● fstrim.service
Docs: man:fstrim

On Mint 20.3

$ systemctl status fstrim.timer
● fstrim.timer - Discard unused blocks once a week
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/fstrim.timer; enabled; vendor
preset: >
Active: active (waiting) since Fri 2023-10-27 07:27:36 BST; 1
months 9 day>
Trigger: Mon 2023-12-11 00:00:00 GMT; 5 days left
Triggers: ● fstrim.service
Docs: man:fstrim

Oct 27 07:27:36 juliet systemd[1]: Started Discard unused blocks once a
week.

and so on.

>>
>

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 20:23:10 -0000 (UTC)
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> Note here by "devices" I'm including USB
> thumb drives (which vary wildly in quality and reliability).

SanDisk and Sony have worked well for me.

> > so does running badblocks actually buy you anything ?
>
> That depends upon /why/ you want to run it, and what you are running it
> upon.
>
> > Is badblocks only intended for hard drives or is it also
> > potentially useful for solid state drives ?
>
> The 'badblocks' command is used to scan Linux block devices, so the
> 'intended' use is to scan "block devices". Whether it is useful
> against whatever hardware is backing the Linux block device is a
> different question.

Surely the intended use is for situations where it's useful.

> > If you use badblocks , do you do a read-write test or just read ?
>
> I've done both in the past. Although I've used read-only scans far
> more often than read-write scans.
>

[...]

> Here are the scenarios where I've used badblocks:

[...]

These are very useful , thank you.

> Note, in any case, having a proper system of backups is necessary, even
> if you use badblocks to look for and catch possible failures early
> before they become outright failures.

Of course. It is still possible for a drive to fail suddenly and completely ,
isn't it ?

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:40:12 -0500
John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> wrote:
> On 2023-12-02 07:44, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> > I mean use badblocks either directly or through the -c option of mkfs
> > and similar commands.
> >
> > My understanding is that , if a sector of a drive seems to go bad , the drive
> > software automatically "remaps" it (or whatever the appropriate verb is) to
> > a different sector so does running badblocks actually buy you anything ?
>
> Badblocks is a leftover from a bygone era.
>
> For the last 30 years or so hard drives have had spare sectors and
> remapped bad ones to good ones, transparently to the end-user. Just
> like you said.

Does "spare sectors" mean on top of the advertised capacity of the drive ? If
yes , could a drive which is not full find more spare sectors by reducing its
advertised capacity (and informing the operating system) ?

> Before that time (1980s and earlier, really) that wasn't the case. As
> another poster alluded to, hard drives of that era would come with a
> piece of paper listing the known bad blocks from manufacturing defects,
> with space for you to write in additional entries as you found them.
> That list could then be used when creating a filesystem (e.g., see the
> -l option to mke2fs) so that the filesystem would not use those known
> bad blocks.

So one had to copy by hand the list to a file ? Interesting. How long such
lists tended to be ?

On 2023-12-05 23:45, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:40:12 -0500
> John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-02 07:44, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>> I mean use badblocks either directly or through the -c option of mkfs
>>> and similar commands.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that , if a sector of a drive seems to go bad , the drive
>>> software automatically "remaps" it (or whatever the appropriate verb is) to
>>> a different sector so does running badblocks actually buy you anything ?
>>
>> Badblocks is a leftover from a bygone era.
>>
>> For the last 30 years or so hard drives have had spare sectors and
>> remapped bad ones to good ones, transparently to the end-user. Just
>> like you said.
>
> Does "spare sectors" mean on top of the advertised capacity of the drive ?

Yes.

> If
> yes , could a drive which is not full find more spare sectors by reducing its
> advertised capacity (and informing the operating system) ?

No.

>
>> Before that time (1980s and earlier, really) that wasn't the case. As
>> another poster alluded to, hard drives of that era would come with a
>> piece of paper listing the known bad blocks from manufacturing defects,
>> with space for you to write in additional entries as you found them.
>> That list could then be used when creating a filesystem (e.g., see the
>> -l option to mke2fs) so that the filesystem would not use those known
>> bad blocks.
>
> So one had to copy by hand the list to a file ?

Or to the low format program.

> Interesting. How long such
> lists tended to be ?

Tiny. One or two entries was normal.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 20:23:10 -0000 (UTC)
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Note here by "devices" I'm including USB
>> thumb drives (which vary wildly in quality and reliability).
>
> SanDisk and Sony have worked well for me.

Those are two of the better brands (provided you don't accidentally get
a fake). But they are by far from the /only/ brands.

>> > so does running badblocks actually buy you anything ?
>>
>> That depends upon /why/ you want to run it, and what you are running
>> it upon.
>>
>> > Is badblocks only intended for hard drives or is it also
>> > potentially useful for solid state drives ?
>>
>> The 'badblocks' command is used to scan Linux block devices, so the
>> 'intended' use is to scan "block devices". Whether it is useful
>> against whatever hardware is backing the Linux block device is a
>> different question.
>
> Surely the intended use is for situations where it's useful.

Yes, for situations where you want to scan a device for read (or read
write) errors. But it is not /meant/ for "hard drives" only. I.e.,
one could conseivably use it to scan a tape for read errors.

>> > If you use badblocks, do you do a read-write test or just read ?
>>
>> I've done both in the past. Although I've used read-only scans far
>> more often than read-write scans.
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> Here are the scenarios where I've used badblocks:
>
> [...]
>
> These are very useful, thank you.
>
>> Note, in any case, having a proper system of backups is necessary,
>> even if you use badblocks to look for and catch possible failures
>> early before they become outright failures.
>
> Of course. It is still possible for a drive to fail suddenly and
> completely, isn't it ?

Yes, and from some of the reports, SSD's seem to often fail in this
way, little to no warning, and poof, the drive no longer works.

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:40:12 -0500
> John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-02 07:44, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> > I mean use badblocks either directly or through the -c option
>> > of mkfs and similar commands.
>> >
>> > My understanding is that, if a sector of a drive seems to go bad,
>> > the drive software automatically "remaps" it (or whatever the
>> > appropriate verb is) to a different sector so does running
>> > badblocks actually buy you anything ?
>>
>> Badblocks is a leftover from a bygone era.
>>
>> For the last 30 years or so hard drives have had spare sectors and
>> remapped bad ones to good ones, transparently to the end-user. Just
>> like you said.
>
> Does "spare sectors" mean on top of the advertised capacity of the
> drive?

Yes, modern drives have additional spares beyond what is advertised.

> If yes, could a drive which is not full find more spare sectors by
> reducing its advertised capacity (and informing the operating
> system)?

It could, but the difference would be small (i.e., you will not get 25%
more capacity). Too small to make a difference to you the user. The
spares are present for two reasons: to increase the percentage of "good
drives" off the assembly line by allowing manufacturing defectsq to be
hidden and to increase the percentage of drives that make it past the
end of the warranty period before they visibly show issues to the
owner.

>> Before that time (1980s and earlier, really) that wasn't the case.
>> As another poster alluded to, hard drives of that era would come
>> with a piece of paper listing the known bad blocks from
>> manufacturing defects, with space for you to write in additional
>> entries as you found them. That list could then be used when
>> creating a filesystem (e.g., see the -l option to mke2fs) so that
>> the filesystem would not use those known bad blocks.
>
> So one had to copy by hand the list to a file?

Or enter it into the "format" program in real time, one sector at a
time, before it began formatting the drive.

> Interesting. How long such lists tended to be?

On the top of the 20MB hard drive that was in my first PC, IIRC the
list was about 8 or 10 sectors long.

On 05/12/2023 22:45, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:40:12 -0500
> John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-02 07:44, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>> I mean use badblocks either directly or through the -c option of mkfs
>>> and similar commands.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that , if a sector of a drive seems to go bad , the drive
>>> software automatically "remaps" it (or whatever the appropriate verb is) to
>>> a different sector so does running badblocks actually buy you anything ?
>>
>> Badblocks is a leftover from a bygone era.
>>
>> For the last 30 years or so hard drives have had spare sectors and
>> remapped bad ones to good ones, transparently to the end-user. Just
>> like you said.
>
> Does "spare sectors" mean on top of the advertised capacity of the drive ? If
> yes , could a drive which is not full find more spare sectors by reducing its
> advertised capacity (and informing the operating system) ?
>
It may inform the operating system, but never the purchaser. The
internet is full of drives that magically never have the capacity they
were sold as.

>> Before that time (1980s and earlier, really) that wasn't the case. As
>> another poster alluded to, hard drives of that era would come with a
>> piece of paper listing the known bad blocks from manufacturing defects,
>> with space for you to write in additional entries as you found them.
>> That list could then be used when creating a filesystem (e.g., see the
>> -l option to mke2fs) so that the filesystem would not use those known
>> bad blocks.
>
> So one had to copy by hand the list to a file ? Interesting. How long such
> lists tended to be ?

10-20 sectors IIRC usually

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 06/12/2023 02:34, Rich wrote:
>> It is still possible for a drive to fail suddenly and
>> completely, isn't it ?
> Yes, and from some of the reports, SSD's seem to often fail in this
> way, little to no warning, and poof, the drive no longer works.

I can confirm this. relatively new (Kingston) drive under warranty
started taking huge amounts of time to boot, SMART said it was well
fucked in terms of recorded errors. Replaced under warranty.

I was lucky that the drive had no irreplaceable data on it and the
vendor was scrupulously honest.

I can think of many scenarios where electronics could fail in such a way
as to render huge tracts of NVRAM inaccessible- typically slightly out
of spec chipsets (too much delay) ageing enough in a hot PC to go fully
out of spec on some decode patterns .

However I haven't had any failures since.

I did monitor SMART parameters quite often on my SSDS but have given up
because I have never found any sign of failure or a bad ram block since.
I don't regularly hammer them.

It is however quite interesting to see what failures do pop up in
electronic kit: these days bad capacitors seem as prevalent as they
always have been, but I got a completely inexplicable failure in a low
level operational amplifier in one peice of kit I fixed. So embedded
that it couldn't have been caused by anything external. It just failed.

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

On 05/12/2023 22:19, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 20:23:10 -0000 (UTC)
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Note here by "devices" I'm including USB
>> thumb drives (which vary wildly in quality and reliability).
>
> SanDisk and Sony have worked well for me.
>
>>> so does running badblocks actually buy you anything ?
>>
>> That depends upon /why/ you want to run it, and what you are running it
>> upon.
>>
>>> Is badblocks only intended for hard drives or is it also
>>> potentially useful for solid state drives ?
>>
>> The 'badblocks' command is used to scan Linux block devices, so the
>> 'intended' use is to scan "block devices". Whether it is useful
>> against whatever hardware is backing the Linux block device is a
>> different question.
>
> Surely the intended use is for situations where it's useful.
>
>>> If you use badblocks , do you do a read-write test or just read ?
>>
>> I've done both in the past. Although I've used read-only scans far
>> more often than read-write scans.
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> Here are the scenarios where I've used badblocks:
>
> [...]
>
> These are very useful , thank you.
>
>> Note, in any case, having a proper system of backups is necessary, even
>> if you use badblocks to look for and catch possible failures early
>> before they become outright failures.
>
> Of course. It is still possible for a drive to fail suddenly and completely ,
> isn't it ?

Very much so if the drive electronics fails. I did once change a
winchesters PCB to get it working again.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 2023-12-06 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 22:45, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:40:12 -0500
>> John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-02 07:44, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>>> I mean use  badblocks  either directly or through the  -c  option
>>>> of  mkfs
>>>> and similar commands.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that , if a sector of a drive seems to go bad ,
>>>> the drive
>>>> software automatically "remaps" it (or whatever the appropriate verb
>>>> is) to
>>>> a different sector so does running  badblocks  actually buy you
>>>> anything ?
>>>
>>> Badblocks is a leftover from a bygone era.
>>>
>>> For the last 30 years or so hard drives have had spare sectors and
>>> remapped bad ones to good ones, transparently to the end-user.  Just
>>> like you said.
>>
>> Does "spare sectors" mean on top of the advertised capacity of the
>> drive ? If
>> yes , could a drive which is not full find more spare sectors by
>> reducing its
>> advertised capacity (and informing the operating system) ?
>>
> It may inform the operating system, but never the purchaser.  The
> internet is full of drives that magically never have the capacity they
> were sold as.

Not to my knowledge.

It is full of people that do not realize that disk vendors, since 1985
at least, use decimal measuring units of bytes (such ad MB), while the
rest of computer industry used binary measuring units of bytes (such as
MiB), but named them MB.

The industry was late in recognizing that both system of units should
have different names, so the confusion lasted long.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 06/12/2023 21:06, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-12-06 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/12/2023 22:45, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:40:12 -0500
>>> John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-02 07:44, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>>>> I mean use  badblocks  either directly or through the  -c  option
>>>>> of  mkfs
>>>>> and similar commands.
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that , if a sector of a drive seems to go bad ,
>>>>> the drive
>>>>> software automatically "remaps" it (or whatever the appropriate
>>>>> verb is) to
>>>>> a different sector so does running  badblocks  actually buy you
>>>>> anything ?
>>>>
>>>> Badblocks is a leftover from a bygone era.
>>>>
>>>> For the last 30 years or so hard drives have had spare sectors and
>>>> remapped bad ones to good ones, transparently to the end-user.  Just
>>>> like you said.
>>>
>>> Does "spare sectors" mean on top of the advertised capacity of the
>>> drive ? If
>>> yes , could a drive which is not full find more spare sectors by
>>> reducing its
>>> advertised capacity (and informing the operating system) ?
>>>
>> It may inform the operating system, but never the purchaser.  The
>> internet is full of drives that magically never have the capacity they
>> were sold as.
>
> Not to my knowledge.
>
> It is full of people that do not realize that disk vendors, since 1985
> at least, use decimal measuring units of bytes (such ad MB), while the
> rest of computer industry used binary measuring units of bytes (such as
> MiB), but named them MB.
>
> The industry was late in recognizing that both system of units should
> have different names, so the confusion lasted long.
>
That is another issue. I am talking about '64GB memory sticks' that have
<4GB capacity.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:22:35 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 06/12/2023 21:06, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> > On 2023-12-06 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> On 05/12/2023 22:45, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:40:12 -0500
> >>> John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-12-02 07:44, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>
> >>> Does "spare sectors" mean on top of the advertised capacity of
> >>> the drive ? If
> >>> yes , could a drive which is not full find more spare sectors by
> >>> reducing its
> >>> advertised capacity (and informing the operating system) ?
> >>>
> >> It may inform the operating system, but never the purchaser.  The
> >> internet is full of drives that magically never have the capacity
> >> they were sold as.
> >
> > Not to my knowledge.
> >
> > ...
> >
> That is another issue. I am talking about '64GB memory sticks' that
> have <4GB capacity.
>

You can easily buy them on AliExpress, just search for 2 TB pendrives
at the cost of $5. What's funny, everybody is happy with them, rating
is usually pretty high, i.e. over 4.5. When I bought one, I had no
heart to inform people they were scammed.

vamastah <szymoraw@wp.pl> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:22:35 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> That is another issue. I am talking about '64GB memory sticks' that
>> have <4GB capacity.
>
> You can easily buy them on AliExpress, just search for 2 TB pendrives
> at the cost of $5. What's funny, everybody is happy with them, rating
> is usually pretty high, i.e. over 4.5. When I bought one, I had no
> heart to inform people they were scammed.

I bought a 128MB (yes "MB") one off there once and even that died
completely when I attempted the first write (of a tiny text file).
I did get a refund easily though.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |