Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE Plasma 5.20 Will Alert You If Your Disk Is Failing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by chuckula View Post

    He never said they were bullet proof, in fact he said the opposite. He said that when they DO fail they go from working fine to dead in an instant.

    And I've had multiple SSDs die exactly like that so I know he's right.
    This is why I am so scared to buy an SSD...

    Comment


    • #22
      It used to be that Linux was an operating system, with or without a desktop environment. Now we have a strange announcement, that Linux cannot handle any hard disk failing, unless it has the KDE desktop environment. What about all those Linux operating systems, including Android, which do not have KDE? All Linux operating systems do not warn about failing disk systems, except KDE?
      If I dare rely on my 40+ years with computers, all computers can signal that storage is about to fail. When & how the operators are notified can vary. Strange that here it depends on the Desktop Environment (KDE) is now needed to do this function.

      Comment


      • #23
        I don't need a program for that. Boot problems, read problems, programs crashing...

        Comment


        • #24
          I'd say the vast majority of users don't realize they should use something like gsmartctl or "smartctl -a" to look at the health of their spinning media/SSD's. If you look at it periodically you can check if sectors are being reallocated on spinning media and on SSD's you can check wear leveling count. Both of those don't trigger SMART failures until they exceed vendor specific thresholds. Pro-actively monitor SMART values and take action before SMART indicates a catastrophic failure.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by chuckula View Post
            Oh, and "OMG YOU WROTE TO IT TOO MANY TIMES" is basically NEVER the reason for a modern [read: From the last 10 years] SSD to actually fail. It's always going to be something else unless you literally work in a lab that tests these things.
            If you wrote to a SSD too many times you would see the fail as a gradual degradation of the disk that would show up in SMART data because the remapping numbers and bad blocks would go way up. Fails that happen suddenly are due to something like the controller chip or the chip talking to the interface dying, not because you wore out the memory chips.

            Because of the speed the SSD drive can be written to and read from, it is possible to wear them out, but the amount of data that it requires is tremendous. The people with systems that are thinking they hit the drive hard and are worried about wearing out the drive. I can guarantee you are off on your data load by exponential proportions of what it takes to wear out a modern drive.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

              This is why I am so scared to buy an SSD...
              If you want to go in gradually, put your personal data on a spinning drive and then let the SSD run the system software. You get many speed benefits of the SSD and the idea is that you can always re-install your Linux distro if things go south without losing anything important. Of course, backups are critical no matter what type of storage you choose anyway.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by vsteel View Post
                Because of the speed the SSD drive can be written to and read from, it is possible to wear them out, but the amount of data that it requires is tremendous. The people with systems that are thinking they hit the drive hard and are worried about wearing out the drive. I can guarantee you are off on your data load by exponential proportions of what it takes to wear out a modern drive.
                I think the last time i checked, it was on the order of maximum write speeds to the drive 24x7 for 2-3 years straight in order to hit any kind of wear limitations. With the more expensive drives lasting longer.

                Comment


                • #28
                  I'm always a little worried about SSDs and I try to keep near-daily backups of any sensitive information on them, as I have had drives die with no warning. They always seem to just keel over instantly. I've never had one go slowly.

                  Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
                  I specifically double-checked that WD hadn't SMRed the 10 TB WD Reds before purchase and Seagate has publicly stated that they don't use SMR in their Ironwolf and Ironwolf Pro lines after those class-action lawsuits got filed against WD over putting SMR into the WD Red line. (I'd have considered going Toshiba+Seagate, but reviewers say comparable Toshiba drives are loud so I'll probably save that for when I can afford to use WD+Seagate+Toshiba to do something like Z-RAID + nightly online backups in a NAS stuffed somewhere I won't hear it.)
                  Seagate did something similar to WD with the 8TB Barracuda Compute drives; initially CMR, they snuck in a "refresh" which was SMR. I bought four at work after happily using a pair the year before - and was spitting fire when I saw classic SMR behaviour out of them. They obfuscate the hell out of the technical documents too, desperate to avoid calling SMR drives SMR because by now everyone knows they're rubbish.

                  ...

                  As for Toshiba drives, I'm (well, my department is) running dozens of the 12TB M07 Enterprise drives at work; they're some of the quietest drives I've used and they're really fast at both reading and writing, as well. The Ironwolf (Pro) and Toshiba Enterprise drives are my go-to disks for well behaved high capacity, although I favour the Toshiba drives simply because we can get them cheaper.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Paradigm Shifter View Post
                    I'm always a little worried about SSDs and I try to keep near-daily backups of any sensitive information on them, as I have had drives die with no warning. They always seem to just keel over instantly. I've never had one go slowly.


                    Seagate did something similar to WD with the 8TB Barracuda Compute drives; initially CMR, they snuck in a "refresh" which was SMR. I bought four at work after happily using a pair the year before - and was spitting fire when I saw classic SMR behaviour out of them. They obfuscate the hell out of the technical documents too, desperate to avoid calling SMR drives SMR because by now everyone knows they're rubbish.

                    ...

                    As for Toshiba drives, I'm (well, my department is) running dozens of the 12TB M07 Enterprise drives at work; they're some of the quietest drives I've used and they're really fast at both reading and writing, as well. The Ironwolf (Pro) and Toshiba Enterprise drives are my go-to disks for well behaved high capacity, although I favour the Toshiba drives simply because we can get them cheaper.

                    Seagate at least updated all their spec sheets (at least for still supported drive models) to identify SMR/CMR drives. They make the abbreviated spec sheets readily available on their site. WD still does not make such info explicitly available, last I checked.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Melcar View Post
                      Seagate at least updated all their spec sheets (at least for still supported drive models) to identify SMR/CMR drives. They make the abbreviated spec sheets readily available on their site. WD still does not make such info explicitly available, last I checked.
                      Well, Seagate hadn't at the time. The spec sheet tried very, very hard to hide the change. This was about 14-18 months ago, though, and I've not looked since.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X