Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018
     
    Perry Chalmers just submitted his first map to the atlas, Elben's Demise.

    Thanks for contributing, and welcome to the atlas project.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
     
    Another drive just failed in the server, had to take it down to replace it. Atlas will be back in a few minutes.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
     
    Is this a common thing in machines that have multiple drives?

    I just wonder about it sometimes. I used to have a twin drive PC with RAID. I used to lose one or the other 500GB disc once a year on average. That's why I got rid of it. It was costing me half a laptop to repair each time it happened, so I figured I'd actually buy the laptop instead.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018 edited
     
    Posted By: LoopysueIs this a common thing in machines that have multiple drives?

    I just wonder about it sometimes. I used to have a twin drive PC with RAID. I used to lose one or the other 500GB disc once a year on average. That's why I got rid of it. It was costing me half a laptop to repair each time it happened, so I figured I'd actually buy the laptop instead.
    It is an indirect cause. Having more drives doesn't increase the chance of a drive failing, but if the average life of a drive is 5 years, and you have 5 of them in the computer, then on average, one will fail every year, which makes it feel like drives have a shorter life span, while in reality, it is no different from having 5 computers side by side with one drive in each.

    My server runs a raid setup with 5 drives, in addition to a couple of standalone disks for backup, SSD's for performance and such, so I do expect to have to replace drives fairly regularly. The drives are also at work 24/7, which also contributes to much more wear and tear than you would have on a desktop computer.
    I do run monitoring software, so I usually replace them when it is predicted they will fail, I don't wait until they actually fail. Sometimes, they can live for a year or more still in that predicted state, but I don't want to take that chance. I always also keep brand new disk around for spares, ready to replace immediately.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
     
    Mine were only lasting 2 years each time. They must have been cheap discs, or RAID must somehow put more stress on them.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
     
    Posted By: LoopysueThey must have been cheap discs, or RAID must somehow put more stress on them.
    Depending on the level of RAID, it will put a little more strain on the disks, but not significantly. Normally, I don't recommend RAID solutions in home PC's though, it just adds another layer of complexity and is usually not worth it. For a two disk raid, your are stuck with either RAID 0 or 1. Raid 0 isn't really raid at all, because it provides no redundancy, it is just raid technology used to pool all the space from two drives into one volume, with the added disadvantage that if one drives goes bad, you loose all the data on both. Raid 1 is mirroring, which means you basically pay for two disks to have the storage space of one. You've got the redundancy, great, but it isn't a replacement for backup (several things can happen to the machine that effectively causes the loss of both drives anyway), and if you need to keep backup anyway, that extra redundancy is usually wasted for the average home user. Great for servers, and for important workstations at work, but not for standard PC's.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
     
    This was Raid 1 - two discs mirroring one another. It proved useful because the discs always failed at different times. The greatest pressure was on my purse.

    It was a machine bought for me by a friend about 10 years ago, when 500MB was really huge, and RAID was dead impressive :P
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018 edited
     
    Posted By: LoopysueThis was Raid 1 - two discs mirroring one another
    I had one of those back in the times myself too (Two 60GB drives I believe). I stopped doing it when I needed to replace my motherboard, and realized the raid implementation were proprietary, so I couldn't read the raid discs on the new motherboard at all, only option was to reformat them and start anew, problems you don't get with a single disc. Add to that the raid implementation on consumer motherboards are really shitty, even today (real raid solutions have battery backups in case of power failure during write and a dedicated processor to handle the raid operations, consumer solutions don't have either, just offloads the workload to the system CPU instead.)


    about 10 years ago, when 500MB was really huge
    I clearly remember when 500MB was really huge. It was a bit more than 10 years ago though :)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018 edited
     
    LOL! I was being kind to myself :P

    Actually that's a typo. I meant GB, not MB!

    I blame the fact I have flu at the moment!
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2018
     
    I remember my first computer that had a hard drive. My Amiga A3000, one 52 meg and one 105 meg SCSI hard drives. And it was considered on the I-Amiga listserv email list I had an excessive amount of space.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2018
     
    Today, you couldn't even fit your map collection on that, even with .fcw's still being quite tiny.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTime9 hours ago
     
    Something seems to be seriously wrong with the core hardware in my server. I am not sure what exactly, but I suspect the motherboard is bad. I think this may also have contributed to the higher than normal disk failures I have been experiencing the last 5 months.

    I've ordered a new server to replace the old one, but it will take a week or two to arrive. I'll hopefully manage to keep the old one running until I have the new one up, but if you experience any interruptions for the atlas website in the near future, this would be why.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTime7 hours ago
     
    Maybe we should try to leave it alone unless we really need something, until you say its ok?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTime7 hours ago
     
    No, that won't be necessary. The atlas is just a tiny part of what that server handles, accessing it won't make any difference.