Jihad needs scientists

[Ken Smith]

In article <MPG.20538aaf69470ac898a04b@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <escck2$hcr$2@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...
In article <MPG.20536be861bedd6a98a048@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <esbpq1$8qk_005@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
[....]
I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart
controllers.

The disk drive itself.

Watch out. Some people call the spinning mechanical bits the disk drive
and all the electronics including that which is on the assembly the
"controller". The boundary has moved enough that this point of view can
be understood.

If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling
controllers.

Back in the era of the tape drive, there were controllers and formatters.
The term "formatter" seems to no longer be used.

Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied.

Ideally, you'd like to have copies of what they have too. You can use
this as an indication of the drives health.

Why do you need the data off the defective sector? All you need to
know is that there are defective sectors (and perhaps some other
interesting statistics; density, etc.).

The how many and where they are and the fact that they are still the same
and that the defect within the sector is still about the same size can all
be useful information in judging the health. If the defects start to grow
it is time to find out the price of a new drive.

The actual data within it is less useful but knowing it doesn't change
would help to be sure that the defect is not growing.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[krw]

In article <esd0np$7gb$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...

In article <MPG.20538aaf69470ac898a04b@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <escck2$hcr$2@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...
In article <MPG.20536be861bedd6a98a048@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <esbpq1$8qk_005@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
[....]
I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart
controllers.

The disk drive itself.

Watch out. Some people call the spinning mechanical bits the disk drive
and all the electronics including that which is on the assembly the
"controller". The boundary has moved enough that this point of view can
be understood.

If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling
controllers.

Back in the era of the tape drive, there were controllers and formatters.
The term "formatter" seems to no longer be used.


[.....]
Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied.

Ideally, you'd like to have copies of what they have too. You can use
this as an indication of the drives health.

Why do you need the data off the defective sector? All you need to
know is that there are defective sectors (and perhaps some other
interesting statistics; density, etc.).

The how many and where they are

Statistics, sure. The drive keeps these. Noone outside the drive
can make use of these anyway (LBA=>physical information isn't exposed
outside the drive).

and the fact that they are still the same

Once the drive has marked them bad they stay bad (and you don't see
them).

and that the defect within the sector is still about the same size

You'll never see any of that information.

can all
be useful information in judging the health.

...and the drive makes use of it. Noone outside the drive is going
to.

If the defects start to grow
it is time to find out the price of a new drive.

Sorry, but that's the drive's call. SMART tells you it _was_ time to
buy a new drive. You don't have access to the information, for a
number of reasons. A bit-by-bit copy won't see this information
either.

The actual data within it is less useful but knowing it doesn't change
would help to be sure that the defect is not growing.

You don't have access to that information.

--
Keith

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 12:40:36 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <bgmgu217r95io2sl21d0cqgjlasvfsureu@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 07 11:43:43 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


Lots of pecker tracks in those two lines. You're going to need
to eat more protein.

You're a fucking retard. That senility has you acting like an
adolescent twit again.

So does mine but they are pressuring people to accept pictures
instead.

Idiot. My statements include picture of checks. IF I want the
check, however, it IS available.

Have you tested that one? I did and I could not get a copy.

NOT A COPY. THE CHECK!

Later
the credit union started charging for copy requests; the
original contract stated there would be no charges.

You prove all banks differ, not much more.

The checks I send to my mother no longer come back
because her bank only does this stuff electronically now.
One presumes that her bank destorys the paper but I'm no longer
going to bet my checking account contents on that assumption.

You're an idiot. Of all the places fraud takes root, the least
likely is at the place where such scans occur.

Your senility has you in a sad, recursive loop. You don't use real
computers, you don't get on the web because you are afraid of virii,

I don't do webbing because I don't have a need to do this kind
of computing.

It would update your now very limited knowledge of modern computing.
You have been told several times by several different persons that
your knowledge of the industry has faded with your age. You need to
start listening.

Do you have some great disdain for modern society?

The few times I do, I use the systems at my
public library.

Ahhh... and the whole time you spend there, you have spent none
updating your limited knowledge of this industry.

you don't bank because you are afraid a bank employee is gonna screw
you.

Not at all. I'm not worried about bank employees.

The person handling the check you are so afraid of not getting
shredded is just that, dipshit. A bonded banking system employee.

The fact is all you likely need is a good lay (or two), but I can't
imagine someone not getting nauseous at the thought of the act, or
subsequently at the sight of you.

You must eaten a lot of protein. YOu've left an abundance of
tracks in this post alone.

Your utter immaturity shows every time you get cornered.

YOu did manage to write a reasonble post yesterday or did somebody
fake your name?

As if your petty uneducated assessments mean a fucking thing.

Answer this: Do you own a DVD player or home stereo system, or even
a TV bigger than 19"?

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:02:19 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <26ngu2dr092sm97d4dvtbnvhnql2ffd0mm@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

This is what happens when you free the serfs.

Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best
use of those other fluids.

Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site
or an urn of ashes to talk to?

Yes, I do.

It isn't helping. Tell the doc to up the Lithium dose.

Do you really feel so compelled to try
to talk to us?

It's part of the job.

What job?

If you're such a bit god, invent something!

I'm trying to solve a number of problems.

Sure.

A few have
been demonstrated in this thread.

Sure.
What? No immature petty blatherings?

You are out of character.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:03:35 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <f3d56$45e8681e$49ecf0e$20166@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
MassiveProng wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

This is what happens when you free the serfs.

Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best
use of those other fluids.


Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site
or an urn of ashes to talk to? Do you really feel so compelled to try
to talk to us? If you're such a bit god, invent something!

Well here's one that was/is incapable of learning toilet
skills.

It is clear that he needs adult supervision of the
maternal kind.

More immature petty baby bullshit. You have succeeded in letting
the Unlearned Tard drag you down to its level. Congratulations.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <MPG.2053db8f3ea5561f98a04d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <esd0np$7gb$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
[...]
The how many and where they are

Statistics, sure. The drive keeps these. Noone outside the drive
can make use of these anyway (LBA=>physical information isn't exposed
outside the drive).

That is some of the information I was saying would be ideal. Note that I
am talking of the ideal and not the "what we can live with".

and the fact that they are still the same

Once the drive has marked them bad they stay bad (and you don't see
them).

The point being that there are no new ones.

and that the defect within the sector is still about the same size

You'll never see any of that information.

can all
be useful information in judging the health.

..and the drive makes use of it. Noone outside the drive is going
to.

That seems unfortunate. It would be nice to be able to monitor that
information for changes.

[....]

Sorry, but that's the drive's call. SMART tells you it _was_ time to
buy a new drive. You don't have access to the information, for a
number of reasons. A bit-by-bit copy won't see this information
either.

Yes, I know. Remember I said "ideally".

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:15:55 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <es9eh9$q95$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es95ji$8qk_001@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es6rgr$kgg$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es6h92$8qk_001@s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
snip

Honey, you are not paranoid enough.

I have suggested the reasonable way to deal with the problems of doing a
back up.

Your methods have serious problems.

You're an idiot.

You are so determined to prove me wrong

It was my job to find all flaws of all processes, systems,

Then why did you stop looking two decades ago? You know NOTHING
about modern computing systems.

and designs and think of solutions.

As if you could improve on a "design".

I didn't earn the title
den mother for nothing.

Bwuahahahahah! How funny. You likely earned it as a joke on you.

that you haven't even
read and thought about what I wrote.

I've read and thought about your ideas over 30 years ago.

Horseshit!

This
is all old stuff and I'm learning that this is another piece
of knowledge that seems to have been lost.

You're an idiot. Backup schemas have been improved upon for
decades. You are decades behind, and every time you assert this utter
CRAP, you prove it to be so.

You just bark some new claim at the
thread and assume that it will convince people.

This is not a conflict of who knows more than the other.

You lost that one at the starting gate, Bessie.

These
are serious matters and there is no room for pissing contests.

Then why are you trying to out piss everyone, ditzoflex?

This is only a problem with this copy of the file and not with the one we
were backing up. You have also ignored the verify step which is always
done.

No, it is not. Verifying requires a second "save" to occur.
Even the old days a full system save couldn't be saved and verified
in one night. Nowadays you have disks that have capacities
in the giga-thingies.

The disks and computer have gotten faster more than they have gotten
bigger.

Sure they've become "faster". The capacity increases have stayed
ahead of processing speeds.

You're an idiot. Your latency figure is on the order of two decades
or more.

Today it takes less time to image my 250G disk than it did the
10M Winchester that was the first one I imaged.

I don't believe imaged the Winchester. I think you dumped it to
magtape or some similar unit record medium.

Bullshit. I have such a drive, and it can be easily "imaged".

If you had two
drives with one dedicated for backups, then you worked for
a very rich company.

You logic is profound. Profoundly fucking ignorant.

None of this changes the fact that you mixed up back up, restore and
repair. The whole reason you do a back up is because files can be changed
when they shouldn't. This is not a question we have been arguing.

I have, almost consistently, been talking about files disappearing.
Plus all the things that can go wrong along the way.

Yes so we have always agreed that the reason you do a backup is because
the files can change at times when they shouldn't. Hopefully we can now
put this question away.

[.....]
As I pointed out, this is exactly what a restore would do. It puts the
files back as they were on some date in the past. If the files are not
right on that date, those incorrect files are exactly what you want a
backup to have on it. You have mixed up the question with one of repair.
That is a different topic.

If you are restoring the virus that is causing you to rebuild your
system, you will be rebuiling your computer system over and
over and all over again. You will never, ever, get out of
restore mode until you stop restoring the virus (a.k.a. the mess
maker).

No, I am not completely stupid, as you seem to want to imply.

I am not trying to imply this. YOu seem to be showing it all on
your own.

Yet another immature, insulting, fucking retarded remark.

The restore
puts things back to the way they were. This means that if the system was
broken on a given day, that exact situation is recorded on the back up.
An earlier back up would have the system as it was on some day before
things went wrong. This is exactly what you want back ups to act like.
They are complete pictures of the system on a given day. The restore
process lets you put things back as they were. The repair process is how
you make the system correct.

Both steps involved making crucial backup decisions.

You're an idiot. That is what backup software is for. It keeps all
the user's preferences, and is about as easy to utilize as any piece
of software could be.

YOu have to
make these decisions when you design your backup process.

YOu are an idiot.

You
cannot tell when the system got infected unless it's a poorly
designed virus.

YOu are a retarded idiot.

YOu could have been saving the virus on each
and every backup tape.

Quit using tapes a LONG time ago. YUo have no concept of what a
backup or a restore is all about.

This implies that you have no clean
system backups.

You're an idiot.

The repair process and restore process has to
be done at the same time.

Nope. Restore the drive data, THEN examine the drive for malicious
intent.

Both "steps" have to be done
with the same action and cannot be separated as you seem
to claim here.

You're an idiot. A drive volume can be restored to a servicing
platform where it can then be scanned for your infamous virus. THEN,
it can be placed back into the system for which it was restored.

You need to BONE UP, ditz.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:22:49 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

There are plenty of data bases in today's online world that can never
be taken off-line.

You're an idiot.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:22:49 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

I can't be offline. Access has to be 7x24x360xdecades.

They'll be awful disappointed when you croak then, eh?

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 13:22:49 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

ANY file can be snapshot accurately.

No, it cannot.

You're an idiot.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 11:27:35 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Words change meaning, levels of indirection are thrown in, confusion
reigns, Dimbulb is wrong (and swears a blue streak to prove it).
Nothing ever changes.

I wasn't even in the discussion she and the smithdude were having
about "bit for bit" copying, you fucking retard.

I was about to post a statement about how exactly correct your
remarks about bad sectors being mapped out on LBA volumes, but you
don't even deserve so much as a fart, asswipe.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:38:29 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling
controllers.

IDE controllers are ALL ON THE DRIVE.

The part on the MOBO is called an I/O interface, NOT a drive
controller.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:21:35 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:41:22 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:


MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:26:33 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:



That's the whole point, dimmie! It doesn't *have* to be a legal
document. That's the whole pint, dimmie!



Yes it *does*, you fucking retard. That is the ONLY point.

I met a fellow who was able to put his entire resume on
the back side of a business card.

Having met you, virtually, I now know two.



Every post you make proves that you are even more retarded than any
of us realized.

You know NOTHING about me, and that proves how retarded you are to
even think that you do.

Through your words you reveal yourself for all to understand.

You're an idiot. You are even more retarded than the dope that
tried to tell me that no DVDs get placed in the packaging with
scratches.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 23:35:21 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) Gave us:

Back in the era of the tape drive, there were controllers and formatters.
The term "formatter" seems to no longer be used.

Tapes were big and cumbersome. No sense using up a read drive's hubs
when a dedicated formatting machine was the right choice.

That read drive needed to be reading.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 19:23:33 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Sorry, but that's the drive's call. SMART tells you it _was_ time to
buy a new drive. You don't have access to the information, for a
number of reasons. A bit-by-bit copy won't see this information
either.

One does NOT need SMART turned on in order to get bad sectors mapped
out on a drive.

 

In article <gnbku21rontk64g8m3s3a3nltsqubg0qlq@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Mar 07 12:40:36 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <bgmgu217r95io2sl21d0cqgjlasvfsureu@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 07 11:43:43 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


Lots of pecker tracks in those two lines. You're going to need
to eat more protein.

You're a fucking retard. That senility has you acting like an
adolescent twit again.

So does mine but they are pressuring people to accept pictures
instead.

Idiot. My statements include picture of checks. IF I want the
check, however, it IS available.

Have you tested that one? I did and I could not get a copy.

NOT A COPY. THE CHECK!

Did you test it? I would be surprised if the bank has kept
the original piece of paper.

Later
the credit union started charging for copy requests; the
original contract stated there would be no charges.

You prove all banks differ, not much more.

They do tend to be different in little ways, mostly the money
charged for services.

The checks I send to my mother no longer come back
because her bank only does this stuff electronically now.
One presumes that her bank destorys the paper but I'm no longer
going to bet my checking account contents on that assumption.

You're an idiot. Of all the places fraud takes root, the least
likely is at the place where such scans occur.

Your senility has you in a sad, recursive loop. You don't use real
computers, you don't get on the web because you are afraid of virii,

I don't do webbing because I don't have a need to do this kind
of computing.

It would update your now very limited knowledge of modern computing.

I don't call webbing modern computing.

You have been told several times by several different persons that
your knowledge of the industry has faded with your age.

The people who have told me don't know butkis about the biz.

You need to
start listening.

I listen. I am also able to think. The people who have been
telling me I'm wrong have based their news on Windows. This
group of software is a good lesson on what not to do.

Do you have some great disdain for modern society?

I have disdain for determined stupidity.

The few times I do, I use the systems at my
public library.

Ahhh... and the whole time you spend there, you have spent none
updating your limited knowledge of this industry.

I think I have more knowledge in my toenail than you ever will
acquire.

you don't bank because you are afraid a bank employee is gonna screw
you.

Not at all. I'm not worried about bank employees.

The person handling the check you are so afraid of not getting
shredded is just that, dipshit. A bonded banking system employee.

No, they are not. The one who is supposed to destroy the check
is the payee. Use your self-proclaimed expertise and google
Check 21. It's getting advertised here heavily.

<snip>

Answer this: Do you own a DVD player or home stereo system, or even
a TV bigger than 19"?

No. Yes. No. Does bigness matter?

/BAH

 

In article <dgngu2lsqttfl017jk96dqvs8p0irnlcsf@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:33:54 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

This is only a problem with this copy of the file and not with the one we
were backing up. You have also ignored the verify step which is always
done.

No, it is not.

Bullshit. It used to be a flag the user could turn off. Now ALL
files get a checksum verification at ALL times.

That is not a bit by bit compare. How large is the checksum field?
And where is it stored on the saveset? If you're not saving
in a directory mode, (but by a bit-to-bit copy), I don't see how
you can even use checksumming.

With large files the
data is kept sequentially, as in a "running checksum" figure is kept
as the file write occurs, and the final value has to match the
checksum for the file.

You have to reread that file on the save set before you can match
the accumulated checksum with what went on the save set.
Again, you appear to be mixing up the two styles of saving.
There are directory saves and then there is the bit-to-bit
image copy.

This is even how file download managers work to allow resuming of a
transfer to be properly addenumed <sp> to the file. That way I can
download entire DVD images of Knoppix at 2 MB pre second. Stop, go
get lunch, come back and turn my computer back on and resume the file
WRITE where it left off! HAHAHAHAhahaha. 4.6GB reception success!

Comm transfers are a completely different method based on packets
described by the several layers of protocols the comm biz has
evolved.

Verifying requires a second "save" to occur.

Wrong. You are living in the dark ages. After a block of data is
written, it gets read, and the checksum for that block is kept, and
the next block gets written, then read, then the checksum gets
updated. The checksum is stored in RAM, and at the end of the file
write, the checksum must match the checksum provided in the file
header. No dual save is required. You are decades behind the rest of
the world.

You so many holes in this design, it is almost in the category of
not even wrong.

Even the old days a full system save couldn't be saved and verified
in one night.

Nowadays, a power supply for a government computer has a single rail
that is meant fore critical saves... "core dumps" to take place at the
moment power is taken from the system. This "core dump" takes place
within a 150ms window!

I suggest you SUAC.

Nowadays you have disks that have capacities
in the giga-thingies.

Yes, and there was a time that a power outage during a write cycle
not only meant that that particular file was hosed, but the retracting
head arm could "spray" write energy all over your platter as it pulls
back out screwing the whole drive up. This is no longer a problem.

You sound confused again.

So many things you have claimed as problematic are not such any
more.

That is your main problem.

Not really. I'm observing that the biz is reinventing what
we did two and three decades ago.

/BAH

 

In article <MPG.20536be861bedd6a98a048@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <esbpq1$8qk_005@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.2052091685c10ec298a03a@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <es928h$8ss_001@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <es829g$2hl$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <87fy8paqu8.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
ls -lu

I assume you had a point.

I think his point is that access time is part of the metadata
that accompanies the file.

It is not stored into the data part of the file. The file's sectors
are
not rewritten so there is no change to that part. I believe that it is
the time you close the file and not the time you opened it that
actually
ends up stored BTW. None of this matters to the backup method I
suggested.



So we have 3 cases:
- If it doesn't change the last-accessed time, then the "last-
accessed time" is in fact a falsity;
- If it changes the last-accessed time and stores the new access,
then the restored file will not be what it was a backup of;
- If it changes the last-accessed time but doesn't store the new
time, then the file in the backup is not identical to the
filesystem that it is a backup of.
All three of these are unsatisfactory. Therefore I contend that
this field is indeed not a useful field when it comes to considering
the behaviour of backups.

No, this is all silly. The backup I have been refering to is not cover
in
the cases in your list. What I suggested was a complete image of the
drive.

That has the problem of also preserving the bad spots of the disk.

Modern disks don't show their "bad spots" to the system.

I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart
controllers.

The disk drive itself.

Has controller functionality moved into all disk drives? That
sorta sucks. ....Do these disk drives have multi ports?

They're
replaced from a cache of hidden sectors as they fail. This doesn't
mean it isn't possible to lose data when one fails though.

So what does a bit-to-bit copy of the physical mean? Bit-to-bit
implies all bits, including the ones covered by the error handler...
doesn't it?

Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied. They no
longer exist. In fact one should never see a bad sector on a disk.
If you do, throw it away. The spare sectors have been used up and
data sectors (the ones you paid for) are being used for replacements.
This indicates a severely damaged drive.

So if you don't ever "see" bad sectors, how does the human know
that a disk replacement is required? Do we have to wait until
it's a complete mess? What happened to mess prevention?

Drives today use LBA (Logical Block Addressing).

Yes,yes. Is this hardware or software? Note, for the purposes
of this discussion, firmware is soft. Oh, and exclude optical--
I don't understand that stuff.

When a sector
starts failing (retry threshold exceeded) the drive moves the data on
that sector to a spare/reserved sector (hopefully) close by, then
points to the new sector and marks the old as bad. The replacement
sector is mapped to be in the same logical position as the one it
replaced, even though it is not physically adjacent. When a sector-
for-sector copy is done to another drive (for instance) sectors are
copied from the source in logical (not physical)

Logical!!! Then it is NOT a bit-to-bit copy. Goddammit. I
goofed and believed them on this one.

order to the target
(where they often end up in physical order).

When you say physical order, is this a numerical monotonically
increasing order of the sectors? Or is it ordered by the directory tree?

Note that I realize different code does different things. Give me
the rule of thumb ;-)

Oh...were they using the term incorrectly again?

Words change meaning, levels of indirection are thrown in, confusion
reigns, Dimbulb is wrong (and swears a blue streak to prove it).
Nothing ever changes.

[glum emoticon here] Yea, no progres has been observed.

/BAH

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <dgngu2lsqttfl017jk96dqvs8p0irnlcsf@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

snip

So many things you have claimed as problematic are not such any
more.

That is your main problem.

Not really. I'm observing that the biz is reinventing what
we did two and three decades ago.

What you're hearing is a peasant rendering of Shakespeare.

 

In article <esc9ar$atc$7@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <esbqel$8qk_010@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es9g7v$q95$8@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
This is part of the "complex issues" skipped to keep the list short.

Do you think that a swapper moves pages from the RAM to the
swap file?

If you think otherwise, you don't know what you are talking about. This
is what "swapping" in a VM system implies.

It didn't in any VM system JMF implemented.

Then JMF was not implementing VM as the term is commonly used in the
industry. He obvious implemented something that he called VM.

People who do the first implementations in the industry get to do the
naming. We got to do that a lot. I know IBM did an implementation.
I don't remember if the other six sisters did.

I'm unaware of
any other OS that used the term in that wasy.

In which way?

The way you've been using it. From your descriptions you
think the RAM is a replacement of our core memory. I can
see where some implmentations would do this because RAM
capacities grew so large so fast. Swapping transfers
a context to the disk, not memory. Doing memory to memory
copies without using a disk was called shuffling.

<snip>

/BAH