problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help - Mandriva

This is a discussion on problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help - Mandriva ; On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:22:46 +0200, Aragorn wrote: >> Posted was accurate until he got to the part where the UPS provides >> surge protection. It does not. It also does not claim such protection >> in its numeric ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

  1. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request forhelp

    On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:22:46 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

    >> Posted was accurate until he got to the part where the UPS provides
    >> surge protection. It does not. It also does not claim such protection
    >> in its numeric specs.

    >
    > I beg to differ. I have two UPSes here at home, and they both have
    > surge protection.


    Indeed, as do mine.

    > This does of course not mean that they can withstand
    > a lightning impact,


    They can't. I lost a carefully crafted Mandrake installation to one such
    strike (it also took out power to the entire city :-)

    > but it's enough to smoothen out the average voltage
    > differences of what you call "dirty" power - we call them brown-outs and
    > power spikes.


    The better ones all provide basic voltage regulation. It's one of the
    things that can make them worthwhile, although PC power supplies are
    specced to withstand quite dirty power as a matter of course.

  2. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    On Apr 17, 7:22 pm, Aragorn wrote:
    > I beg to differ. I have two UPSes here at home, and they both have surge
    > protection. This does of course not mean that they can withstand a
    > lightning impact, but it's enough to smoothen out the average voltage
    > differences of what you call "dirty" power - we call them brown-outs and
    > power spikes.


    Your power spikes are made irrelevant by protection already inside
    all appliances. Those power spikes are only noise. How robust is
    protection inside electronics? This 120 volt 'modified sine wave' UPS
    outputs two 200 volt square waves with up to a 270 volt spike between
    those sine waves. Why does that not harm computers? Computers are so
    robust that 'dirty' power created by a UPS and your 'power spike' are
    only noise.

    Where is that UPS spec that claims protection from surges? Surge
    protection is installed to protect from lightning. Lightning must
    not damage an effective protector. A protection claim - the numbers -
    was not provided because no plug-in UPS claims such protection.

    How to sell to the naive. Claim surge protection on a color
    glossy. Claim to protect from a type of surge that does not cause
    damage. Same color glossy in the 1960s also proved that cigarette
    smoking improves health. But people who *know*, instead, read the
    Surgeon General's report or read numbers on a manufacturer's
    specification. Demonstrated by many here is color glossy knowledge -
    not engineering fact. That UPS does not claim protection from a type
    of surge that typically causes damage. Reality gets forgotten on
    color glossies.

    Aragorn - begging to differ still does not provide spec numbers. You
    post must provide numbers. No spec numbers says you do not know. So
    tell us, how does that UPS stop surges? Does that silly 2 cm part
    stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? We install surge
    protection to make direct lightning strikes irrelevant. How does a
    silly little 2 cm part inside a UPS stop what three miles of sky could
    not?

    An electrical engineer who designed surge protectors multiple decades
    ago says, "That UPS does not provide effective protection from surges
    that cause damage". Where are your numbers that contradict this? No
    such numbers exist. That UPS protection is 'proven' by same logic that
    also proved Saddam had WMDs.

    A cheap UPS is for protection of data not yet saved to disk. A
    UPS that accomplishes more costs many $thousands more. Those cheap
    UPSes protect only from surges that do not cause damage. That is not
    effective protection - but enough to claim on a color glossy
    brochure. What indicates no real protection? Manufacture spec that
    claims protection ... does not exist.


  3. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    On Apr 18, 2:41*pm, marksouth wrote:
    > They can't. *I lost a carefully crafted Mandrake installation to one such
    > strike (it also took out power to the entire city :-)


    We install surge protection to make lightning irrelevant. You have
    proven that protector did nott work (your damage). Then claimed it
    provided surge protection (without providing a single manufacturer
    spec number). Yes, it provides surge protection. But is does not
    protect from any surge that typically causes damage. When would you
    know? As soon as you had read the numbers.

    We install surge protectors to make lightning surges irrelevant.
    Protectors that do not earth lightning are only for protecting obscene
    profit margins.

  4. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request forhelp

    On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:27:10 -0700, w_tom wrote:

    > Your power spikes are made irrelevant by protection already inside all
    > appliances. Those power spikes are only noise.




    I'm guessing you have suffered catastrophic data loss to a lightning
    strike, and been severely traumatised by it? My sympathies. But there's
    probably no need to go off the deep end just because someone wants to use
    reiserfs....

  5. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    w_tom wrote:

    > On Apr 17, 7:22 pm, Aragorn wrote:


    >> I beg to differ. I have two UPSes here at home, and they both have surge
    >> protection. This does of course not mean that they can withstand a
    >> lightning impact, but it's enough to smoothen out the average voltage
    >> differences of what you call "dirty" power - we call them brown-outs and
    >> power spikes.

    >
    > Your power spikes are made irrelevant by protection already inside
    > all appliances. Those power spikes are only noise.


    Again, I beg to differ. We use a common voltage here of 220-230 Volts
    alternating current, at 50 Hz for household electricity. However, Belgium
    is one big rural zone, with lots of industry in close proximity of the
    inhabited areas, and the heavier industry uses a regular current of 380
    Volts.

    I have personally known it to happen a lot that at the end of the shipyard's
    shift - the shipyard has already gone bankrupt a few years ago now and the
    whole terrain has been sold to real estate companies for private housing -
    the power in my apartment building (where I was living then) would briefly
    spike up to 380 Volt, just because the surge from switching off all that
    heavy machinery at the shipyard couldn't be properly handled by the local
    power distribution booth.

    It cost me quite a lot of lightbulbs in the shorter days of the year, I can
    tell you that, not to mention that many other people in the area had
    problems with other appliances.

    > How robust is protection inside electronics? This 120 volt 'modified sine
    > wave' UPS outputs two 200 volt square waves with up to a 270 volt spike
    > between those sine waves.


    We use 220-230 Volt, as I have mentioned, but yes, I am well-aware of how
    alternating current works, thank you.

    > Why does that not harm computers? Computers are so robust that 'dirty'
    > power created by a UPS and your 'power spike' are only noise.


    A computer's power supply is indeed _relatively_ robust compared to other
    appliances, but even a computer's power supply isn't capable of stopping
    momentary surges of high voltage on the local grid.

    In addition, the computer I am currently setting up with Xen and Gentoo as
    I've already mentioned a few times earlier has cost me some 16'000 Euro -
    that's about 24'000 US Dollar at current currency - and I have no intention
    of taking my chances on power spikes.

    > Where is that UPS spec that claims protection from surges?


    In the manual, and on their website. They are both MGE UPSes, so you can
    check for yourself. One is a square and purple Pulsar 1800 or something
    like that - the one with the black cornerpieces - and the other one is a
    heavier model - a 2100? - that looks like a minitower.

    > Surge protection is installed to protect from lightning. Lightning
    > must not damage an effective protector. A protection claim - the
    > numbers - was not provided because no plug-in UPS claims such
    > protection.


    By the tone you are writing the above, you are effectively accusing me of
    deliberately lying. Well, I'll tell you what: you give me your address and
    I will mail the manuals to you.

    I do on the other hand have no intention whatsoever to start digging around
    in the box in which I keep all manuals, motherboard CDs and other
    paraphernalia pertaining to my computers at this stage, especially not as
    it's the middle of the night right now over here, and I am in an entirely
    dark room because my rheostat gave in a few weeks ago and I haven't had the
    time yet to call a technician to come and replace it.

    > How to sell to the naive. Claim surge protection on a color
    > glossy. Claim to protect from a type of surge that does not cause
    > damage. Same color glossy in the 1960s also proved that cigarette
    > smoking improves health. But people who *know*, instead, read the
    > Surgeon General's report or read numbers on a manufacturer's
    > specification.


    The reports of how dangerous smoking is to one's health are highly
    overrated. Sure, it's not healthy, and it does hold a certain risk of
    cancer - and this is important - to people who already have a genetic
    tendency to develop cancer. Yet with 80% or more of the regular cars here
    - I'm not even counting buses or trucks - being powered by dieselfuel, a
    ten-minute walk down the street causes more harm to my lungs than smoking
    an entire pack of cigarettes.

    Likewise there's the greenhouse gas thing. A Lamborghini Murçiélago has a
    6.4 liter V12 engine that puts out about 500 grams of CO2 per 100 km and is
    thus considered an _extremely_ environmentally-unfriendly vehicle. As
    such, it has an equally extremely high registration tax and annual road
    tax. Yet the amount of carbon dioxide it releases during a 100 km trip is
    about the same as 10 athletes doing a 100 meter hurdle run. How's that for
    relativity?

    Don't get me wrong, though. I'm a believer of the concept that human
    activity throughout the last two centuries has radically increased the
    amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and that we're polluting the
    planet in many other ways as well. Yet, truth and propaganda are quite
    different things, and politicians always have an agenda.

    One of the simple truths is that while man may be responsible for a serious
    increase in the amount of greenhouse gases and therefore - at least in part
    - also for global warming, *every* *living* *thing* that breathes air emits
    carbon dioxide, and in the last century, the global population has grown
    from about four billion people to over six billion now. That's a 50%
    increase of the human population in just one hundred years. You do the
    math.

    > Demonstrated by many here is color glossy knowledge - not engineering
    > fact. That UPS does not claim protection from a type of surge that
    > typically causes damage.


    You've already made that remark in your earlier post, and I've never
    contested it. I never made the claim that the UPS offers protection from
    surges that could ruin your equipment, eventhough you seem very willing to
    put those words in my mouth.

    > Reality gets forgotten on color glossies.
    >
    > Aragorn - begging to differ still does not provide spec numbers. You
    > post must provide numbers. No spec numbers says you do not know.


    Indeed, I do not know those numbers. But what I do know is that the heavier
    one of my two UPSes is capable of regulating power so that it remains
    within the 200-230 Volt spec, even if the wall socket power drops to 170
    Volt - a brownout - or if it spikes to 400 Volt.

    Both those margins can be modified via software, with the UPS connected to
    the computer via a USB cable or a regular serial port cable. The software
    is available for (many releases of) Windows, OS X, RedHat Enterprise Linux
    and SuSE - the latter two are distribution-specific /.rpm/ packages.

    On my other UPS, the power regulation is more limited and cannot be changed
    via software.

    > So tell us, how does that UPS stop surges?


    It stops the surges as mentioned above, i.e. the ones I keep telling you
    that it stops. If you were to read my original reply to you again, you
    would know that I have literally said that it's not intended to stop
    lightning surges.

    Besides, a test of power supplies and surge protectors in a recent edition
    of the computer magazine I have now unsubscribed from - because of their
    Windows- and consumergrade hardware-centered articles - has shown that none
    of the surge protectors or UPSes tested could effectively stop or even
    survive a 2000 Volt spike. Most of them burned out, but some of them
    actually blew up.

    Read the above again. Nowhere am I saying that they stop a lightning surge.
    Even the circuit breaker in my old apartment couldn't do that, as I have
    come to experience.

    I had just bought a new computer - it was September of the year 2000 - and
    six weeks after my computer was delivered, lightning struck on the tree in
    the garden of the house next to my apartment building. The EMP pulse
    caused the circuit breaker to do its job, but my computer was fried, and so
    was the monitor.

    > Does that silly 2 cm part stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
    > not?


    Dude, I never said that it does! Read again, please!

    > We install surge protection to make direct lightning strikes irrelevant.
    > How does a silly little 2 cm part inside a UPS stop what three miles of
    > sky could not?


    You're beginning to sound like a broken record, friend...

    > An electrical engineer who designed surge protectors multiple decades
    > ago says, "That UPS does not provide effective protection from surges
    > that cause damage". Where are your numbers that contradict this? No
    > such numbers exist. That UPS protection is 'proven' by same logic that
    > also proved Saddam had WMDs.


    Again, I would kindly direct you to MGE's website and to their helpdesk.
    Their equipment is guaranteed to even out surges *of* *the* *kind* I have
    described. It doesn't say anything about lightning, and neither do I.

    > A cheap UPS is for protection of data not yet saved to disk.


    That is what I have said, yes.

    > A UPS that accomplishes more costs many $thousands more. Those cheap
    > UPSes protect only from surges that do not cause damage.


    And I have never said that they did. Please read what I have written, not
    what I haven't written.

    > That is not effective protection - but enough to claim on a color glossy
    > brochure. What indicates no real protection? Manufacture spec that
    > claims protection ... does not exist.




    --
    Aragorn
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  6. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    marksouth wrote:

    > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:27:10 -0700, w_tom wrote:
    >
    >> Your power spikes are made irrelevant by protection already inside all
    >> appliances. Those power spikes are only noise.

    >
    >
    >
    > I'm guessing you have suffered catastrophic data loss to a lightning
    > strike, and been severely traumatised by it? My sympathies. But there's
    > probably no need to go off the deep end just because someone wants to use
    > reiserfs....


    Something has just dawned to me... If my memory serves me right - and it
    usually does - then our friend /w_tom/ has already posted similar rants
    regarding the same topic and using the same pseudonym during my previous
    residence on this newsgroup.

    My guess is that he works for a company that manufactures and/or sells
    lightning surge protection to private homes and businesses...

    Anyway, my two cents... ;-)

    --
    Aragorn
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  7. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    On Apr 18, 4:37*pm, marksouth wrote:
    > I'm guessing you have suffered catastrophic data loss to a lightning
    > strike, and been severely traumatised by it? *


    Amazing how others know only because a color glossy sales brochure
    educated them. These same type people also believed Saddam had WMDs.
    Do you blindly believe what you are told - or do you learn?
    Assumption of protection in a plug-in UPS (when the manufacturer will
    not even provide numbers) is how myths get created.

    A plug-in UPS claims to protect from surges that don't do damage.
    Some of the 'dirtiest' electricity is created by a UPS when in battery
    backup mode. What kind of protection is that? Facts that get
    forgotten when using speculation, color glossies, and junk science.

    UPS is for protection of data not yet saved on disk. UPS provides
    battery backup power during blackouts or extreme brownouts. UPS for
    surge protection? Claims only supported by speculation.

  8. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    Aragorn wrote:
    > Something has just dawned to me... If my memory serves me right - and it
    > usually does - then our friend /w_tom/ has already posted similar rants
    > regarding the same topic and using the same pseudonym during my previous
    > residence on this newsgroup.


    Your memory is correct.

    > My guess is that he works for a company that manufactures and/or sells
    > lightning surge protection to private homes and businesses...


    Read his first sentence.
    "We install surge protection to make lightning irrelevant." The "we"
    is a company that he will identify if you ask him.

    He does know a great deal about lightning and surge protection.
    The approach he recommends involves grounding your entire
    electrical system, plus your telephone wiring if it comes in
    on wires. If done properly, his approach can protect against
    lightening.

    But it costs far more than the equipment protected in homes,
    and has to be done exquisitely correctly or it does not work
    against lightning.

    Ordinary surge protectors do some good, at a modest cost.
    I use them. I do not spend $thousands for possibly
    effective professionally-installed protection.

    Cheers!

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  9. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    Jim Beard wrote:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> Something has just dawned to me... If my memory serves me right - and it
    >> usually does - then our friend /w_tom/ has already posted similar rants
    >> regarding the same topic and using the same pseudonym during my previous
    >> residence on this newsgroup.

    >
    > Your memory is correct.


    Sometimes it's a blessing, sometimes it's a curse... ;-)

    >> My guess is that he works for a company that manufactures and/or sells
    >> lightning surge protection to private homes and businesses...

    >
    > Read his first sentence.
    > "We install surge protection to make lightning irrelevant." The "we"
    > is a company that he will identify if you ask him.


    I gathered as much, yes... :-)

    > He does know a great deal about lightning and surge protection.
    > The approach he recommends involves grounding your entire
    > electrical system, plus your telephone wiring if it comes in
    > on wires. If done properly, his approach can protect against
    > lightening.


    Now that you mention it, it does begin to dawn to me more and more, yes...

    > But it costs far more than the equipment protected in homes,
    > and has to be done exquisitely correctly or it does not work
    > against lightning.


    .... And that is indeed what I remember from our previous debate with this
    person - you are correct! :-)

    > Ordinary surge protectors do some good, at a modest cost.
    > I use them. I do not spend $thousands for possibly
    > effective professionally-installed protection.


    If I ever win the lottery and the sum gives me the opportunity to build "the
    house of my dreams", then I plan on such measures. But then again, if I
    win the lottery, I can afford that. ;-)

    > Cheers!


    Bottoms up...!

    --
    Aragorn
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  10. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    230 volts dropping to 170 volts is not a surge. It is a brownout
    that either will be ignored by electronic equipment or that
    electronics will shut off. So that a brownout does not endanger
    unsaved data, we use a UPS. A device that typically lets the 230
    volts drop so low that incandescent bulbs are at 50% intensity. Even
    that voltage is more than sufficient to keep electronics running. At
    170 volts, the UPS would have kicked in. But if no UPS existed,
    electronics would simply stop working - without damage. Brownouts and
    blackouts do not cause damage.

    Electronics must work well above 230 volts. Computer power supplies
    must withstand 1000 volts spikes as even required in Intel specs.
    Some computer power supplies claim even higher numbers such as 1800
    volts. Lower voltages are noise - made irrelevant by protection
    already inside all appliances.

    How does a UPS protect electronics? Destructive surges occur in
    microseconds. UPS takes tens of milliseconds to respond to anything.
    300 consecutive surges could pass through that UPS and the UPS would
    do nothing. More reasons (numbers) why that UPS is not effective
    surge protection.

    What voltage does a 230 volt surge protector circuit react to?
    Protector circuits ignore voltage below 350 volts; typically do almost
    nothing until voltages exceed 400 volts. Where does this 230 volt
    surge protector circuit do voltage regulation? Where does it smooth
    out voltages? It does not. It does what manufacturer specs claim.
    Numbers say your conclusions are in error.

    If surges are destroying electronics and light bulbs, then smarter
    is to earth one 'whole house' surge protector that actually does
    provide surge protection. Every 'complex electronics' facility does
    this to protect all expensive electronics. With an expensive
    computer, then same protection is required. Otherwise, your only
    protection is what comes inside that computer. Where is protection
    that makes surges (actually noise) irrelevant? Already inside your
    computer. UPS does what its spec say - nothing.

    Still not provided are numbers provided by that UPS. Why? Those
    numbers (protection for each type of surge) do not exist. Why are
    confrontational posts necessary to get these numbers or an admission
    that no numbers exist? No matter how many times I ask, reality - you
    don't have numbers and will not admit it. No numbers; so you post
    subjectively as is taught in spin doctor school?

    Aragorn still posts nothing that says a UPS provides surge
    protection. Demonstrated by Aragorn is that popular myths are easily
    believed by those who don't demanding numbers - who admit to not
    having numbers. It was a simple question. Show me the numbers.
    Obviously, that question is no longer forgettable. A warning to
    others about these recommenders who automatically know a plug-in UPS
    provides effective protection. They never bother to ask why - they
    just 'know'.

    That UPS is for protection from blackouts and extreme brownouts. A
    tool for protecting data not yet saved to disk.

    On Apr 18, 9:02 pm, Aragorn wrote:
    > Again, I beg to differ. We use a common voltage here of 220-230 Volts
    > alternating current, at 50 Hz for household electricity. However, Belgium
    > is one big rural zone, with lots of industry in close proximity of the
    > inhabited areas, and the heavier industry uses a regular current of 380
    > Volts.
    >
    > I have personally known it to happen a lot that at the end of the shipyard's
    > shift - the shipyard has already gone bankrupt a few years ago now and the
    > whole terrain has been sold to real estate companies for private housing -
    > the power in my apartment building (where I was living then) would briefly
    > spike up to 380 Volt, just because the surge from switching off all that
    > heavy machinery at the shipyard couldn't be properly handled by the local
    > power distribution booth.
    >
    > It cost me quite a lot of lightbulbs in the shorter days of the year, I can
    > tell you that, not to mention that many other people in the area had
    > problems with other appliances.
    > ...
    >
    > We use 220-230 Volt, as I have mentioned, but yes, I am well-aware of how
    > alternating current works, thank you.
    > ...
    >
    > A computer's power supply is indeed _relatively_ robust compared to other
    > appliances, but even a computer's power supply isn't capable of stopping
    > momentary surges of high voltage on the local grid.
    >
    > In addition, the computer I am currently setting up with Xen and Gentoo as
    > I've already mentioned a few times earlier has cost me some 16'000 Euro -
    > that's about 24'000 US Dollar at current currency - and I have no intention
    > of taking my chances on power spikes.
    > ...
    >
    > In the manual, and on their website. They are both MGE UPSes, so you can
    > check for yourself. One is a square and purple Pulsar 1800 or something
    > like that - the one with the black cornerpieces - and the other one is a
    > heavier model - a 2100? - that looks like a minitower.
    > ...
    >
    > By the tone you are writing the above, you are effectively accusing me of
    > deliberately lying. Well, I'll tell you what: you give me your address and
    > I will mail the manuals to you.
    >
    > I do on the other hand have no intention whatsoever to start digging around
    > in the box in which I keep all manuals, motherboard CDs and other
    > paraphernalia pertaining to my computers at this stage, especially not as
    > it's the middle of the night right now over here, and I am in an entirely
    > dark room because my rheostat gave in a few weeks ago and I haven't had the
    > time yet to call a technician to come and replace it.
    > ...
    >
    > The reports of how dangerous smoking is to one's health are highly
    > overrated. Sure, it's not healthy, and it does hold a certain risk of
    > cancer - and this is important - to people who already have a genetic
    > tendency to develop cancer. Yet with 80% or more of the regular cars here
    > - I'm not even counting buses or trucks - being powered by dieselfuel, a
    > ten-minute walk down the street causes more harm to my lungs than smoking
    > an entire pack of cigarettes.
    >
    > Likewise there's the greenhouse gas thing. A Lamborghini Murilago has a
    > 6.4 liter V12 engine that puts out about 500 grams of CO2 per 100 km and is
    > thus considered an _extremely_ environmentally-unfriendly vehicle. As
    > such, it has an equally extremely high registration tax and annual road
    > tax. Yet the amount of carbon dioxide it releases during a 100 km trip is
    > about the same as 10 athletes doing a 100 meter hurdle run. How's that for
    > relativity?
    >
    > Don't get me wrong, though. I'm a believer of the concept that human
    > activity throughout the last two centuries has radically increased the
    > amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and that we're polluting the
    > planet in many other ways as well. Yet, truth and propaganda are quite
    > different things, and politicians always have an agenda.
    >
    > One of the simple truths is that while man may be responsible for a serious
    > increase in the amount of greenhouse gases and therefore - at least in part
    > - also for global warming, *every* *living* *thing* that breathes air emits
    > carbon dioxide, and in the last century, the global population has grown
    > from about four billion people to over six billion now. That's a 50%
    > increase of the human population in just one hundred years. You do the
    > math.
    > ...
    >
    > You've already made that remark in your earlier post, and I've never
    > contested it. I never made the claim that the UPS offers protection from
    > surges that could ruin your equipment, eventhough you seem very willing to
    > put those words in my mouth.
    > ...
    >
    > Indeed, I do not know those numbers. But what I do know is that the heavier
    > one of my two UPSes is capable of regulating power so that it remains
    > within the 200-230 Volt spec, even if the wall socket power drops to 170
    > Volt - a brownout - or if it spikes to 400 Volt.
    >
    > Both those margins can be modified via software, with the UPS connected to
    > the computer via a USB cable or a regular serial port cable. The software
    > is available for (many releases of) Windows, OS X, RedHat Enterprise Linux
    > and SuSE - the latter two are distribution-specific /.rpm/ packages.
    >
    > On my other UPS, the power regulation is more limited and cannot be changed
    > via software.
    > ...
    >
    > It stops the surges as mentioned above, i.e. the ones I keep telling you
    > that it stops. If you were to read my original reply to you again, you
    > would know that I have literally said that it's not intended to stop
    > lightning surges.
    >
    > Besides, a test of power supplies and surge protectors in a recent edition
    > of the computer magazine I have now unsubscribed from - because of their
    > Windows- and consumergrade hardware-centered articles - has shown that none
    > of the surge protectors or UPSes tested could effectively stop or even
    > survive a 2000 Volt spike. Most of them burned out, but some of them
    > actually blew up.
    >
    > Read the above again. Nowhere am I saying that they stop a lightning surge.
    > Even the circuit breaker in my old apartment couldn't do that, as I have
    > come to experience.
    >
    > I had just bought a new computer - it was September of the year 2000 - and
    > six weeks after my computer was delivered, lightning struck on the tree in
    > the garden of the house next to my apartment building. The EMP pulse
    > caused the circuit breaker to do its job, but my computer was fried, and so
    > was the monitor.
    > ...
    >
    > Again, I would kindly direct you to MGE's website and to their helpdesk.
    > Their equipment is guaranteed to even out surges *of* *the* *kind* I have
    > described. It doesn't say anything about lightning, and neither do I.
    > ...


  11. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request forhelp

    On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:35:30 -0700, w_tom wrote:

    > On Apr 18, 4:37*pm, marksouth wrote:
    >> I'm guessing you have suffered catastrophic data loss to a lightning
    >> strike, and been severely traumatised by it?

    >
    > Amazing how others know only because a color glossy sales brochure
    > educated them. These same type people also believed Saddam had WMDs. Do
    > you blindly believe what you are told - or do you learn? Assumption of
    > protection in a plug-in UPS (when the manufacturer will not even provide
    > numbers) is how myths get created.
    >
    > A plug-in UPS claims to protect from surges that don't do damage.
    > Some of the 'dirtiest' electricity is created by a UPS when in battery
    > backup mode. What kind of protection is that? Facts that get forgotten
    > when using speculation, color glossies, and junk science.
    >
    > UPS is for protection of data not yet saved on disk. UPS provides
    > battery backup power during blackouts or extreme brownouts. UPS for
    > surge protection? Claims only supported by speculation.


    So that would be a "yes", then.

    Does mentioning Saddam and WMDs invoke Godwin, BTW?

  12. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request forhelp

    On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:36:42 -0700, w_tom wrote:

    > On Apr 18, 2:41*pm, marksouth wrote:
    >> They can't. *I lost a carefully crafted Mandrake installation to one
    >> such strike (it also took out power to the entire city :-)

    >
    > We install surge protection to make lightning irrelevant. You have
    > proven that protector did nott work (your damage).


    Against lightning, no, it didn't work.

    > Then claimed it
    > provided surge protection (without providing a single manufacturer spec
    > number). Yes, it provides surge protection. But is does not protect
    > from any surge that typically causes damage. When would you know? As
    > soon as you had read the numbers.


    This is a straw man, except stuffed with crap instead of straw.

    > We install surge protectors to make lightning surges irrelevant.


    Well good for you, then.

    > Protectors that do not earth lightning are only for protecting obscene
    > profit margins.


    It sounds as if you are spreading a certain amount of misinformation in
    order to protect your own profit margins.

  13. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    on Saturday 19 April 2008 06:27
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    w_tom wrote:

    [snip]
    > Does that silly 2 cm part
    > stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not?


    No. If it is what I am thinking of it neither stops
    nor absorbs, but diverts the energy. The spike is
    hopefully shorted to earth via a gas discharge or similar.

    > We install surge
    > protection to make direct lightning strikes irrelevant.

    [snip]

    Big claim, although not totally outrageous.

    There are several related problems with different solutions
    and different costs. If anyone is really interested, I'd
    suggest a google search or going to a hardware newsgroup.

    This thread is getting way too verbose for me.

    'Bye.


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  14. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    w_tom wrote:

    > 230 volts dropping to 170 volts is not a surge. It is a brownout
    > that either will be ignored by electronic equipment or that
    > electronics will shut off.


    And that is exactly what I have said.

    > So that a brownout does not endanger unsaved data, we use a UPS.


    Correct, yes.

    > [...] Brownouts and blackouts do not cause damage.


    And I *never* *said* they did. Perhaps you would care to read what I *did*
    say instead?

    > Electronics must work well above 230 volts. Computer power supplies
    > must withstand 1000 volts spikes as even required in Intel specs.
    > Some computer power supplies claim even higher numbers such as 1800
    > volts. Lower voltages are noise - made irrelevant by protection
    > already inside all appliances.


    I have never heard of a computer supply that could take spikes up to 1000
    Volts, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    > How does a UPS protect electronics? Destructive surges occur in
    > microseconds. UPS takes tens of milliseconds to respond to anything.
    > 300 consecutive surges could pass through that UPS and the UPS would
    > do nothing. More reasons (numbers) why that UPS is not effective
    > surge protection.


    It would seem that you have a totally different notion regarding what
    constitutes "a power surge". In my book, anything exceeding the nominal
    voltage required and used by an appliance is a surge.

    > What voltage does a 230 volt surge protector circuit react to?
    > Protector circuits ignore voltage below 350 volts; typically do almost
    > nothing until voltages exceed 400 volts.


    350 Volts or 400 Volts are what constitutes power spikes in my book, and you
    can say whatever you want, but a generic incandescent bulb that was
    designed for 220-230 Volts will *not* survive 400 Volts. Well, not for any
    longer than a microsecond or so.

    > Where does this 230 volt surge protector circuit do voltage regulation?
    > Where does it smooth out voltages?


    Inside the unit, using its battery for back-up when a brownout occurs, and
    using earth to divert the spikes.

    > It does not.


    Does too.

    > It does what manufacturer specs claim.


    That's what I've been trying to tell you all along. The manufacturer claims
    that it does, and even offers you software by which you can adjust the
    Voltage gating.

    > Numbers say your conclusions are in error.


    The numbers telling you that my conclusions are in error only exist in your
    head, because you keep moving the goalposts and the issues you accuse me of
    making up have nothing to do with anything of what I have said.

    I believe you have a serious comprehension problem, or perhaps you just
    can't come up with the patience to actually read what I have written.
    Either way, you seem unwilling to hear what I have to say, and instead you
    put other things in my mouth which I have never said.

    > If surges are destroying electronics and light bulbs, then smarter
    > is to earth one 'whole house' surge protector that actually does
    > provide surge protection.


    Try to get that done by your cheapskate landlord if you're only renting the
    place. Hell, there was only earthing on the wallpower sockets of two rooms
    - the kitchen and the bathroom. And even where I'm living now, even though
    this is my property, I didn't design this building and I have very little
    say in its management, plus that we are having a very hard time getting the
    architect and construction contractor to finish his job - we had to sue
    them and as far as I know, the case still hasn't been handled in court.

    There are seven apartments in this building - including the groundfloor
    apartment, which according to the original plan should have been garage
    space but which for some reason was converted into a physiotherapy practice
    - and so I own less than one seventh of the building; the top floor has a
    larger part because those two apartments each have two additional stories.

    > Every 'complex electronics' facility does this to protect all expensive
    > electronics. With an expensive computer, then same protection is
    > required. Otherwise, your only protection is what comes inside that
    > computer. Where is protection that makes surges (actually noise)
    > irrelevant? Already inside your computer. UPS does what its spec say -
    > nothing.


    Then I suggest you start reading the specs more closely, because they
    clearly say that they protect your equipment against surges - and this is
    important - of the kind that I have described. Nowhere did I mention
    lightning surges, but I spoke of power spikes. Those are surges too.

    And either way, there is no efficient surge protector in the event of
    lightning, because eventhough the surge protectors you are obviously
    manufacturing and/or selling may divert a potentially fatal surge, a
    lightning strike always generates an EMP - an electromagnetic pulse, just
    as with a nuclear bomb, only much smaller - and an EMP propagates through
    air until it finds something of less resistance, like a UTP cable. From
    there, the pulse will enter your computer and fry it just as well.

    That's what happened to my computer in 2000. The surge that tripped the
    circuit breaker in my fuse box didn't come from the power grid. It came
    from the EMP entering my computer via the UTP cable, frying the network
    card, partially frying the videocard and the motherboard, and finding its
    way into the electric grid in my apartment through the computer's power
    supply, and then onto the fuse box.

    > Still not provided are numbers provided by that UPS.


    I told you what it does at which voltages - repeatedly - so I don't know
    what other numbers you are referring to.

    > Why? Those numbers (protection for each type of surge) do not exist.


    If they are numbers other than the ones I have already given you, then they
    probably do not exist indeed, because they would be imaginary numbers that
    only have some meaning in your mind, sorry.

    I have tried to be civil with you, I have tried to explain what it is that I
    meant to say, and yet you continue to (1) put words in my mouth and (2)
    ignore that which I have said. You're too stringent about this whole thing
    for me to start suspecting that you're trying to defame me, so I can only
    conclude that you have some serious obsessions with the subject of surge
    protection.

    > Why are confrontational posts necessary to get these numbers or an
    > admission that no numbers exist?


    I don't know. You tell me. *You're* the one who obviously felt the need to
    get confrontational with me, and with the other people who have reacted to
    your post.

    > No matter how many times I ask, reality - you don't have numbers and
    > will not admit it. No numbers; so you post subjectively as is taught in
    > spin doctor school?


    Spin doctor school, huh? I'll tell you what: I was going to save it to a
    comment at the end of your rant, but I'll give you a scoop already: after I
    am done with replying to this post, I am going to walk away from this
    thread.

    > Aragorn still posts nothing that says a UPS provides surge
    > protection.


    And /w_tom/ should learn how to read instead of how to rant.

    > Demonstrated by Aragorn is that popular myths are easily
    > believed by those who don't demanding numbers - who admit to not
    > having numbers. It was a simple question. Show me the numbers.
    > Obviously, that question is no longer forgettable. A warning to
    > others about these recommenders who automatically know a plug-in UPS
    > provides effective protection. They never bother to ask why - they
    > just 'know'.


    Even with MGE's manual right in front of your nose, you would still argue,
    wouldn't you? I bet you would even argue with MGE itself.

    > [...]


    .... And _please_ do not top-post!



    --
    Aragorn
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  15. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    Aragorn wrote:

    > w_tom wrote:
    >
    >
    > 350 Volts or 400 Volts are what constitutes power spikes in my book, and
    > you can say whatever you want, but a generic incandescent bulb that was
    > designed for 220-230 Volts will *not* survive 400 Volts. Well, not for
    > any longer than a microsecond or so.


    When I grew up in Germany, in the late 40's they switched from 110V to 220V.
    We had to get the radio and the vacuum cleaner upgraded, but they told us
    to just leave the light bulbs alone until they burned out. They gave off
    light that was so white it was almost blue. My memory isn't good enough
    to say they lasted for weeks, but certainly for quite a few days.

  16. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    Bill Pfeifer wrote:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> w_tom wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> 350 Volts or 400 Volts are what constitutes power spikes in my book, and
    >> you can say whatever you want, but a generic incandescent bulb that was
    >> designed for 220-230 Volts will *not* survive 400 Volts. Well, not for
    >> any longer than a microsecond or so.

    >
    > When I grew up in Germany, in the late 40's they switched from 110V to
    > 220V. We had to get the radio and the vacuum cleaner upgraded, but they
    > told us
    > to just leave the light bulbs alone until they burned out. They gave off
    > light that was so white it was almost blue. My memory isn't good enough
    > to say they lasted for weeks, but certainly for quite a few days.


    They don't make 'em anymore like they used to, huh?

    --
    Aragorn
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  17. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:23:16 -0400, Aragorn wrote:

    > That would be /XFS then. It's an incredibly feature-laden and powerful
    > filesystem - I use it myself but even I can't keep track of all the
    > possibilities that it offers. ;-)


    I allocated and formatted the partitions and filesystems for 2008.1,
    using XFS. Last night I finally got around to installing 2008.1.

    Found one big nasty. The boot manager cannot be installed in the
    root partition, when it's formatted with XFS. As this was near the
    end of the install, I put it on the mbr instead, overwriting my
    gag boot manager installation.

    I was somewhat annoyed the install of lilo did not pick up any other
    operating systems (2 different installs of 2008,0, win 98, and win
    xp pro).

    Looks like I'll be experimenting with the filesystem conversion
    utilities (after I make a backup), for switching back to reiserfs,
    so I can reinstall gag.

    Regards, Dave Hodgins

    --
    Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
    (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
    use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

  18. Re: problem with reiser file system - questions and request for help

    David W. Hodgins wrote:

    > I allocated and formatted the partitions and filesystems for 2008.1,
    > using XFS. Last night I finally got around to installing 2008.1.
    >
    > Found one big nasty. The boot manager cannot be installed in the
    > root partition, when it's formatted with XFS.


    That is correct, yes, but I always put the boot manager in the MBR
    anyway. ;-)

    > As this was near the end of the install, I put it on the mbr instead,
    > overwriting my gag boot manager installation.


    Never heard of that one. With a set-up as the one you're describing below,
    I would use the GNU/Linux bootloader in the MBR, and have the NT bootloader
    boot Windows 98 and Windows XP. Of course, with more than one GNU/Linux
    installation or another *nix on the same system, you'd have to use
    chainloading from within GRUB or LILO.

    > I was somewhat annoyed the install of lilo did not pick up any other
    > operating systems (2 different installs of 2008,0, win 98, and win
    > xp pro).


    That's odd. Must be something in the Mandriva installer then.

    > Looks like I'll be experimenting with the filesystem conversion
    > utilities (after I make a backup), for switching back to reiserfs,
    > so I can reinstall gag.


    I wasn't even aware that there are any utilities that can convert /XFS/
    into /reiserfs./ If so, it would definitely be another major advantage of
    GNU/Linux over other operating systems in terms of "selling points". ;-)

    --
    Aragorn
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  19. Changing root filesystem type - SOLVED

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:40:42 -0400, Aragorn wrote:

    > I wasn't even aware that there are any utilities that can convert /XFS/
    > into /reiserfs./ If so, it would definitely be another major advantage of
    > GNU/Linux over other operating systems in terms of "selling points". ;-)


    The script provided with the package convertfs seems to assume you will cd
    to /usr/sbin, and destroys the data if you don't,

    Anyway, I had a backup, but learned a few things that may be useful to
    others, along the way.

    I changed the file system by copying all of the data from the / filesystem
    after booting from 2008.o to a backup using
    "rsync -auvx /var/mnt/81/ /var/mnt/back81", then running mkreiserfs /dev/hda14.

    I then copyied the data back using "rsync -auvx /var/mnt/back81 /var/mnt/81/".

    I then ran "/var/mnt/2008.1/sbin followed by chroot /var/mnt/2008.1.

    First of all, changing the filesystem type, and running mkfs.xxx will
    change the uuid of the partition. While I had changed the /etc/fstab
    entry to point to the correct partition (/dev/hda14, in this case),
    and changed /etc/lilo.conf to put lilo on the boot sector for hda14,
    I wasted a couple of hours trying to figure out what was wrong,
    before I noticed that lilo was using the old uuid in the boot stanza,
    and "lilo -v" did not complain that the uuid did not exist.

    Once I changed lilo to use /dev/hda14 in the boot stanzas, I then ran
    into the problem of the initrd expecting the root filesystem to be xfs,
    rather then the new format, reiserfs.

    I figured the quickest way to fix the initrd would be to re-install the
    kernel with "rpm -i --force kernel-desktop...". As I was using chroot
    to get into the state for the install, /proc was empty. Turns out the
    kernel install bootloader script changed some of the /dev/hda14 entries
    to /dev, but appeared to have worked. Once I fixed lilo, I was surprised
    to find the initrd was still trying to mount root as xfs.

    To fix this, I had to remove the /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.... and
    /boot/initrd-2.6... files, reinstall the kernel, fix the /etc/lilo.conf,
    and then I could boot back into 2008.1 (after reinstalling the gag
    boot manager in the mbr).

    Hope this helps anyone trying to change the root filesystem type, in the
    future.

    Regards, Dave Hodgins

    --
    Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
    (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
    use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2