FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:47 PM
"Ralf Mardorf"
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

-----Original Message-----
From: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org on behalf of Nicolás Adamo
Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 15:24

Man, since ext4 was born, all I heard about it was good...
Regarding data integrity:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Ext4-data-loss-explanations-and-workarounds-740671.html

+++

Hi Nicolás

I still try to recover the data and I'll read all links. Thank you.

---

But my advice is to mount a RAID arrange. That would be bulletproof.

+++

RAID for a DAW means much devices = too much noise for a home studio.
I should have made backups to 2 devices and only one backup device should be mounted when working. If I rm files by a RAID, what would be different?

---

http://www.musix.org.ar/en/index.html

+++

I suspect that for my needs a distro would be useful, that allows me to configure my DAW for my needs and then has less tendencies to break things when installing upgrades.
Prebuilt DAWs don't fit to my needs. Well known major distros tend to become more worse than I heard about Windows tend to be. A harmless example, I don't like to be forced to use PulseAudio. Debian testing doesn't, but after a while they tried, so I needed to build dummy packages. There are much more worse things, but I won't spoil the list with this issues.

Cheers!

Ralf
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:49 PM
"Ralf Mardorf"
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

-----Original Message-----
From: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org on behalf of Thomas Bächler
Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 15:34

Am 06.12.2011 15:24, schrieb Nicolás Adamo:
> But my advice is to mount a RAID arrange. That would be bulletproof.

No, it wouldn't. Deleting a file on RAID still means it's gone.

+++

Exactly, as I've written before, I run "rm", so a RAID wouldn't improve anything. Ext3 instead of ext4 might improve something?!

I already run latest Parted Magic live CD and I still have to try one tool.
 
Old 12-06-2011, 02:32 PM
C Anthony Risinger
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

C Anthony
On Dec 6, 2011 8:48 AM, "Ralf Mardorf" <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org on behalf of Nicolás Adamo
> Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 15:24
>
> Man, since ext4 was born, all I heard about it was good...
> Regarding data integrity:
>
> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Ext4-data-loss-explanations-and-workarounds-740671.html
>
> +++
>
> Hi Nicolás
>
> I still try to recover the data and I'll read all links. Thank you.
>
> ---
>
> But my advice is to mount a RAID arrange. That would be bulletproof.
>
> +++
>
> RAID for a DAW means much devices = too much noise for a home studio.
> I should have made backups to 2 devices and only one backup device should
> be mounted when working. If I rm files by a RAID, what would be different?
>
> ---
>
> http://www.musix.org.ar/en/index.html
>
> +++
>
> I suspect that for my needs a distro would be useful, that allows me to
> configure my DAW for my needs and then has less tendencies to break things
> when installing upgrades.
> Prebuilt DAWs don't fit to my needs. Well known major distros tend to
> become more worse than I heard about Windows tend to be. A harmless
> example, I don't like to be forced to use PulseAudio. Debian testing
> doesn't, but after a while they tried, so I needed to build dummy packages.
> There are much more worse things, but I won't spoil the list with this
> issues.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Ralf
>
 
Old 12-06-2011, 02:46 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> Ext3 instead of ext4 might improve something?!

It is true that ext3 has existed for longer than ext4. However, most
testing is now probably done on ext4, so I wouldn't expect ext4 to be
more buggy than ext3. The real difference is that ext4 allows you to
mount your partitions with optimizations that might cause more
dataloss on a powerfailure than what the standard ext3 options would.
I'd rather change the mount options for ext4 than move to ext3.

Cheers,

Tom
 
Old 12-06-2011, 02:51 PM
C Anthony Risinger
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:32 AM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xtfx.me> wrote:
> C Anthony

^^^^^ whoops ... fat fingered that somehow while thumbing thru new
messages :-o ...

> On Dec 6, 2011 8:48 AM, "Ralf Mardorf" <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org on behalf of Nicolás Adamo
>> Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 15:24
>>
>> Man, since ext4 was born, all I heard about it was good...
>> Regarding data integrity:
>>
>> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Ext4-data-loss-explanations-and-workarounds-740671.html
>>
>> +++
>>
>> Hi Nicolás
>>
>> I still try to recover the data and I'll read all links. Thank you.

how did you "accidentally" delete? if the disk wasn't written to
afterwards, the data is still *technically* there, but linking it back
together sounds like a real chore :-(

>> ---
>>
>> But my advice is to mount a RAID arrange. That would be bulletproof.
>>
>> +++
>>
>> RAID for a DAW means much devices = too much noise for a home studio.
>> I should have made backups to 2 devices and only one backup device should
>> be mounted when working. If I rm files by a RAID, what would be different?

I can't imagine it'll be all that loud. i run a 2x2TB RAID1
(md/softraid) array for my local server using dense/"green" disks
(5900rpm) and believe me, the disks are dwarfed by everything else
(eg, fans ;-)

your "mount one at a time" scheme won't really help you ... what if
your disk dies since the last backup? RAID lets you replace a disk in
real-time/on-line and gives a noticeable read performance boost ...
what's too lose? off-site backups are still a good thing.

>> ---
>>
>> http://www.musix.org.ar/en/index.html
>>
>> +++
>>
>> I suspect that for my needs a distro would be useful, that allows me to
>> configure my DAW for my needs and then has less tendencies to break things
>> when installing upgrades.
>> Prebuilt DAWs don't fit to my needs. Well known major distros tend to
>> become more worse than I heard about Windows tend to be. A harmless example,
>> I don't like to be forced to use PulseAudio. Debian testing doesn't, but
>> after a while they tried, so I needed to build dummy packages. There are
>> much more worse things, but I won't spoil the list with this issues.

regardless of distro you'll just have to work it into youre needs.
Arch will let you do this pretty well, but you'll just have to stay on
top of incoming changes ... such is life i suppose :-) Pulseaudio
works fantastic for the use cases it was designed for (which fulfills
95% of people's needs), but if it doesn't work for you, you can
suspend it and let JACK or whatever take control as needed.

--

C Anthony
 
Old 12-06-2011, 03:00 PM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:51:17 -0600
C Anthony Risinger wrote:

> but linking it back
> together sounds like a real chore

A cinch with tools like testdisk unless it's been overwritten, in which
case it would need to be worth >£1000 to recover it in a cleanroom.

I always save copies of my documents as text too as text can be read and
found as text on a disk, even fragments ;-).
 
Old 12-06-2011, 03:08 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

Am 06.12.2011 15:49, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> [...] I run "rm", so a RAID wouldn't improve anything. Ext3 instead of ext4 might improve something?!

Generally, running 'rm' on a file means it's gone. It's the
specification of 'rm'. Expecting something different means you're doing
something wrong.

If you want to undelete, you need some kind of log-based filesystem with
rollback support. None of the ext* family can do that, and never could.
The ext3/4 undelete tools are hacks, based on luck.
 
Old 12-06-2011, 03:22 PM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:08:46 +0100
Thomas Bächler wrote:

> Generally, running 'rm' on a file means it's gone. It's the
> specification of 'rm'.

Sort of, more so on SSDs but it's just harder to reconstruct because
SSDs writes are spread out as sectors get worn out much quicker. For
speed, /bin/rm just removes the reference in the partition table which
is why it takes ages to write but a second to delete, leaving the data
and allowing it to be overwritten later which could be in a second or
possibly never. It is less likely to be overwritten on unix with
partitions and a dedicated swap rather than on windows with a growing
pagefile. The only rm command that makes the data gone that I know of
is OpenBSDs rm with option -P, which overwrites 3 times.
 
Old 12-06-2011, 03:28 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

Am 06.12.2011 17:22, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:08:46 +0100
> Thomas Bächler wrote:
>
>> Generally, running 'rm' on a file means it's gone. It's the
>> specification of 'rm'.
>
> Sort of, more so on SSDs but it's just harder to reconstruct because
> SSDs writes are spread out as sectors get worn out much quicker. For
> speed, /bin/rm just removes the reference

I'm not talking about implementation, but about specification. There is
no guarantee that the file is gone, and there is also no guarantee that
it can be recovered. If you run 'rm', you should expect the file to be
gone for good - because that is what can happen according to the
specification.

Re: SSDs: File systems like ext4 can run discard commands that will tell
the SSD firmware that the data is no longer needed - so even though the
data is still there, the place on the SSD where the data resides is no
longer associated with the logical "block" where they were. If you read
that block, the SSD firmware may simply return a bunch of zeroes.
Recovering data in this case requires raw access to the flash memory
itself (which modern SSDs won't grant you).
 
Old 12-06-2011, 03:51 PM
Mauro Santos
 
Default 2 recommendations needed for installing ArchLinux

On 06-12-2011 14:49, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org on behalf of Thomas Bächler
> Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 15:34
>
> Am 06.12.2011 15:24, schrieb Nicolás Adamo:
>> But my advice is to mount a RAID arrange. That would be bulletproof.
>
> No, it wouldn't. Deleting a file on RAID still means it's gone.
>
> +++
>
> Exactly, as I've written before, I run "rm", so a RAID wouldn't improve anything. Ext3 instead of ext4 might improve something?!
>
> I already run latest Parted Magic live CD and I still have to try one tool.
>

When you delete something from a filesystem then you should expect it to
be gone, it will only be recoverable by chance or luck.

Ext4 is an evolution of ext3 so recovering deleted files shouldn't be
much different, on the other hand, day to day usage can benefit from
using ext4 over ext3. Give testdisk a try, it might not be able to
recover everything though, depending on what you've done to the fs after
you deleted the files.

--
Mauro Santos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org