Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware... - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware... - Ubuntu ; This weekend I installed Ubuntu on my parents computers. I believe they are exactly the same, or nearly so. MSI k9vgm-v motherboards, version 1.1, but purchased six months apart ATI pci-express Radeon 10something graphic cards, purchased on the same day ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

  1. Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    This weekend I installed Ubuntu on my parents computers. I believe
    they are exactly the same, or nearly so.

    MSI k9vgm-v motherboards, version 1.1, but purchased six months apart
    ATI pci-express Radeon 10something graphic cards, purchased on the
    same day
    (those were the most important things to my query)
    Maxtor 80gig hard drives
    MadDog Dvd recordable drives (these are oddly not the same)
    Lite-on Dvd-rom drives
    two gigs of memory, probably Kingston Value Ram

    When I installed on my dad's, I noticed a card icon, and clicked on it
    and it said for optimum use (paraphrasing, I think) I needed to load
    non-free drivers. So I did. I don't see the same icon on my moms,
    although it may have been there at first, and I was too busy exploring
    to notice it.

    Where do I go to find out if the proprietary drivers are loaded, and
    install them if they're not?

    Also, I've currently got PCLinuxOS and Debian on my own computer, but
    I think I like the Ubuntu interface better (definitely better than
    Debian, because the gui isn't working right for some reason). But
    there seems to be only two options with Ubuntu: guided, which takes up
    the entire free space on the hard drive, making it a single partition;
    manual, where I have to set up the partitions on my own.

    I know what the /swap partition is and why I want it, but I'm still a
    little confused as to what /, /var, and /home are, and why i would
    want a separate partition for each. But I definitely want documents
    and downloads, and games like Quake and Unreal, separate from the
    system files.

    By the way, this is my first successful install of Linux, but about my
    second attempt. I dual booted Windows XP and 98 from six months after
    XP was released until MS stopped supporting 98. And I always
    reconfigure Windows to put documents on their own partition.

    Thanks for any help.


  2. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    Todd illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > This weekend I installed Ubuntu on my parents computers. I believe
    > they are exactly the same, or nearly so.
    >
    > MSI k9vgm-v motherboards, version 1.1, but purchased six months apart
    > ATI pci-express Radeon 10something graphic cards, purchased on the
    > same day
    > (those were the most important things to my query)
    > Maxtor 80gig hard drives
    > MadDog Dvd recordable drives (these are oddly not the same)
    > Lite-on Dvd-rom drives
    > two gigs of memory, probably Kingston Value Ram
    >
    > When I installed on my dad's, I noticed a card icon, and clicked on it
    > and it said for optimum use (paraphrasing, I think) I needed to load
    > non-free drivers. So I did. I don't see the same icon on my moms,
    > although it may have been there at first, and I was too busy exploring
    > to notice it.
    >
    > Where do I go to find out if the proprietary drivers are loaded, and
    > install them if they're not?


    That's pretty easy, but only if you know. ;-)

    System -> Administration -> Retricted Drivers (In Hardy "Hardware
    Drivers")

    > Also, I've currently got PCLinuxOS and Debian on my own computer, but
    > I think I like the Ubuntu interface better (definitely better than
    > Debian, because the gui isn't working right for some reason). But
    > there seems to be only two options with Ubuntu: guided, which takes up
    > the entire free space on the hard drive, making it a single partition;
    > manual, where I have to set up the partitions on my own.


    It is possible to create partitions, but I would suggest doing it from
    either the Gparted, Sysresccd, or Parted Magic Live CD's. This way all
    partitions will be unmounted and you can work on them. A little
    pre-planning works wonders though.

    > I know what the /swap partition is and why I want it, but I'm still a
    > little confused as to what /, /var, and /home are, and why i would
    > want a separate partition for each. But I definitely want documents
    > and downloads, and games like Quake and Unreal, separate from the
    > system files.


    / is the system partition (holds everything in it's entirety unless
    you specify otherwise)
    /var is for system logs and spools.
    /home is the only one I would recommend setting off apart. This would
    hold your user configuration files and all documents.

    > By the way, this is my first successful install of Linux, but about my
    > second attempt. I dual booted Windows XP and 98 from six months after
    > XP was released until MS stopped supporting 98. And I always
    > reconfigure Windows to put documents on their own partition.


    Which is similar to what you'd be doing should you create your own
    /home partition.

    OK.

    Here's a suggestion. If you've got a 60gb hard drive, give a / partition of
    6-10gb. give /swap around "1.5 to 2 times your memory". and give /home the
    rest.

    You won't go far wrong and the / partition will be large enough to
    accomodate any large logfiles you accumulate in the /var folder it
    contains..

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  3. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    Todd wrote:

    > This weekend I installed Ubuntu on my parents computers. I believe
    > they are exactly the same, or nearly so.
    >
    > MSI k9vgm-v motherboards, version 1.1, but purchased six months apart
    > ATI pci-express Radeon 10something graphic cards, purchased on the
    > same day
    > (those were the most important things to my query)
    > Maxtor 80gig hard drives
    > MadDog Dvd recordable drives (these are oddly not the same)
    > Lite-on Dvd-rom drives
    > two gigs of memory, probably Kingston Value Ram
    >
    > When I installed on my dad's, I noticed a card icon, and clicked on it
    > and it said for optimum use (paraphrasing, I think) I needed to load
    > non-free drivers. So I did. I don't see the same icon on my moms,
    > although it may have been there at first, and I was too busy exploring
    > to notice it.
    >
    > Where do I go to find out if the proprietary drivers are loaded, and
    > install them if they're not?
    >
    > Also, I've currently got PCLinuxOS and Debian on my own computer, but
    > I think I like the Ubuntu interface better (definitely better than
    > Debian, because the gui isn't working right for some reason). But
    > there seems to be only two options with Ubuntu: guided, which takes up
    > the entire free space on the hard drive, making it a single partition;
    > manual, where I have to set up the partitions on my own.
    >
    > I know what the /swap partition is and why I want it, but I'm still a
    > little confused as to what /, /var, and /home are, and why i would
    > want a separate partition for each. But I definitely want documents
    > and downloads, and games like Quake and Unreal, separate from the
    > system files.
    >
    > By the way, this is my first successful install of Linux, but about my
    > second attempt. I dual booted Windows XP and 98 from six months after
    > XP was released until MS stopped supporting 98. And I always
    > reconfigure Windows to put documents on their own partition.
    >
    > Thanks for any help.


    My suggestion, if you're going to let the install do the partitioning
    manually is to do the following:

    A 10 GB ext3 partition mounted on /
    A swapfile = 2 x's amount of RAM in your computer
    A ext3 partition using the remaining freespace mounted on /home

    The first partition is larger than required but will cover you should
    anything screwup while the system is running that can eat up lots of
    harddrive space, such as log files in /var/log or /tmp files growing like
    crazy.

    From the liveCD you can even run qparted BEFORE initiating the Install and
    simply shrink an existing NTFS/FAT drive that's already there leaving raw
    freespace to be used once you get into the actual installation and
    implement the partitioning/mounting as described above.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    Q: What OS is built for lusers?
    A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

    Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
    Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6



  4. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    NoStop wrote:

    >My suggestion, if you're going to let the install do the partitioning
    >manually is to do the following:
    >
    >A 10 GB ext3 partition mounted on /
    >A swapfile = 2 x's amount of RAM in your computer
    >A ext3 partition using the remaining freespace mounted on /home
    >
    >The first partition is larger than required but will cover you should
    >anything screwup while the system is running that can eat up lots of
    >harddrive space, such as log files in /var/log or /tmp files growing like
    >crazy.
    >
    >From the liveCD you can even run qparted BEFORE initiating the Install and
    >simply shrink an existing NTFS/FAT drive that's already there leaving raw
    >freespace to be used once you get into the actual installation and
    >implement the partitioning/mounting as described above.
    >
    >Cheers.



    My Windows partitions are usually about 32gig, and Vista by itself
    takes 10gig. But 10gigs is enough for Linux?



  5. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    Todd wrote:
    > NoStop wrote:
    >
    >
    >> My suggestion, if you're going to let the install do the partitioning
    >> manually is to do the following:
    >>
    >> A 10 GB ext3 partition mounted on /
    >> A swapfile = 2 x's amount of RAM in your computer
    >> A ext3 partition using the remaining freespace mounted on /home
    >>
    >> The first partition is larger than required but will cover you should
    >> anything screwup while the system is running that can eat up lots of
    >> harddrive space, such as log files in /var/log or /tmp files growing like
    >> crazy.
    >>
    >>
    > >From the liveCD you can even run qparted BEFORE initiating the Install and

    >
    >> simply shrink an existing NTFS/FAT drive that's already there leaving raw
    >> freespace to be used once you get into the actual installation and
    >> implement the partitioning/mounting as described above.
    >>
    >> Cheers.
    >>

    >
    >
    > My Windows partitions are usually about 32gig, and Vista by itself
    > takes 10gig. But 10gigs is enough for Linux?



    Depends on how much junk you download.

    I have probably 20 various GNU/Linux boxen running on hard drives in the
    4.3 GB range, and they aren't half full. And those have everything in
    the root ("/") partition.

    NoStop is warning you to think ahead to the future. What are your plans
    regarding downloading, and the estimated time for the life of that
    distro? If you are just experimenting, and will install another distro
    fairly soon, you won't be collecting many programs or generating many files.

    Here is a 233 MHz Debian 3.1 GNU/Linux box that is running an INN news
    server with a fairly large spool (directories of newsgroup articles)
    containing several thousand articles in several hundred newsgroups, and
    peering with other news servers, streaming around 5000 articles in and
    out every day:

    john@news7:~$ df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/hda1 3.9G 2.5G 1.4G 64% /
    tmpfs 63M 0 63M 0% /dev/shm

    As you can see, the 4.3 GB hard drive is only 64% full and is using only
    2.5 GB.

    Below is another 4.3 GB hard drive on another 233 MHz Debian 3.1
    GNU/Linux box (with only 64 MB of RAM) which is running Bind9 (DNS
    server), Fetchmail, Stunnel, ntpd, and a lot of other "normal" Debian
    processes and services, like openssh server, and even GDM and GNOME.

    john@ns:~$ df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/hda1 3.9G 2.0G 1.9G 51% /
    tmpfs 31M 0 31M 0% /dev/shm

    Only 2.0 GB is required.

    You certainly don't need much, but plan for your future as NoStop
    suggests. If you don't, it is still simple to add another hard drive and
    move some directories to it. You could bust up a Linux installation and
    run parts of it on hard drives all over the world if you wanted. It's
    not restricted like "See Colon Backslash" at all.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  6. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    Todd wrote:

    > NoStop wrote:
    >
    >>My suggestion, if you're going to let the install do the partitioning
    >>manually is to do the following:
    >>
    >>A 10 GB ext3 partition mounted on /
    >>A swapfile = 2 x's amount of RAM in your computer
    >>A ext3 partition using the remaining freespace mounted on /home
    >>
    >>The first partition is larger than required but will cover you should
    >>anything screwup while the system is running that can eat up lots of
    >>harddrive space, such as log files in /var/log or /tmp files growing like
    >>crazy.
    >>
    >>From the liveCD you can even run qparted BEFORE initiating the Install and
    >>simply shrink an existing NTFS/FAT drive that's already there leaving raw
    >>freespace to be used once you get into the actual installation and
    >>implement the partitioning/mounting as described above.
    >>
    >>Cheers.

    >
    >
    > My Windows partitions are usually about 32gig, and Vista by itself
    > takes 10gig. But 10gigs is enough for Linux?


    Actually, as I tried to explain, 10 GB is way more than enough. Even half
    that amount is more than required for the system mounted to /. What
    additional space is required for your /home files is dependent upon how
    much data you're going to create or store in the user's home
    directory(ies).

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    Q: What OS is built for lusers?
    A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

    Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
    Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6



  7. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    On 2008-03-20, Todd wrote:
    >
    > My Windows partitions are usually about 32gig, and Vista by itself
    > takes 10gig. But 10gigs is enough for Linux?


    Plenty. I usually use about a 6GB /, which includes /etc and /usr.
    /var, /tmp, /boot and /home usually get their own space, and currently
    / has about 4.6G free...

    Windows has some good points, but it's resource usage certainly isn't
    one of them...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  8. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    I asked:

    >> I know what the /swap partition is and why I want it, but I'm still a
    >> little confused as to what /, /var, and /home are, and why i would
    >> want a separate partition for each. But I definitely want documents
    >> and downloads, and games like Quake and Unreal, separate from the
    >> system files.


    Moog wrote:

    >/ is the system partition (holds everything in it's entirety unless
    >you specify otherwise)
    >/var is for system logs and spools.
    >/home is the only one I would recommend setting off apart. This would
    >hold your user configuration files and all documents.




    >Here's a suggestion. If you've got a 60gb hard drive, give a / partition of
    >6-10gb. give /swap around "1.5 to 2 times your memory". and give /home the
    >rest.
    >
    >You won't go far wrong and the / partition will be large enough to
    >accomodate any large logfiles you accumulate in the /var folder it
    >contains..


    Can you even get a 60gig hard drive anymore? I've got a 500gig hard
    drive. I was letting the installer determine the size of all but
    /home, and giving it about 32gig, which is what I usually make a
    Windows partition. Somewhere around there is where the cluster
    doubles in size.



  9. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    "John F. Morse" wrote:

    >I have probably 20 various GNU/Linux boxen running on hard drives in the
    >4.3 GB range, and they aren't half full. And those have everything in
    >the root ("/") partition.


    I'm surprised you still have working drives that small. I haven't
    seen under 60gig in several years, and I didn't think drives were
    designed to last more than three years; they're not warranted any more
    for more than one.

    >NoStop is warning you to think ahead to the future. What are your plans
    >regarding downloading, and the estimated time for the life of that
    >distro? If you are just experimenting, and will install another distro
    >fairly soon, you won't be collecting many programs or generating many files.
    >


    >
    >You certainly don't need much, but plan for your future as NoStop
    >suggests. If you don't, it is still simple to add another hard drive and
    >move some directories to it. You could bust up a Linux installation and
    >run parts of it on hard drives all over the world if you wanted. It's
    >not restricted like "See Colon Backslash" at all.


    I've got a 500gig drive. I figure I can install a few more Linux
    distros, and still have plenty of space left over for just about
    anything.



  10. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    Todd wrote:

    > "John F. Morse" wrote:
    >
    > >I have probably 20 various GNU/Linux boxen running on hard drives in the
    > >4.3 GB range, and they aren't half full. And those have everything in
    > >the root ("/") partition.

    >
    > I'm surprised you still have working drives that small. I haven't
    > seen under 60gig in several years, and I didn't think drives were
    > designed to last more than three years; they're not warranted any more
    > for more than one.


    Heh!

    I have three 1.6gig drives and a 10gig in the machine functioning as my
    mail server. Not that the 1.6gig drives are necessary, in fact I
    could probably run the server on just one of those and do something
    else with the 10gig drive especially (web server maybe), but I hate to
    have drives sitting around collecting dust doing nothing.

    For the same reasons, I also have another machine operating as a home
    network "music server" that has a 50gig data drive, and a 1.3gig drive
    for the operating system. That particular drive has been running pretty
    much nonstop since the straight Pentium I days. It use to be in big old
    "server" case that said 486DX on the outside as a matter of fact.


  11. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    Todd wrote:
    > "John F. Morse" wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I have probably 20 various GNU/Linux boxen running on hard drives in the
    >> 4.3 GB range, and they aren't half full. And those have everything in
    >> the root ("/") partition.
    >>

    >
    > I'm surprised you still have working drives that small. I haven't
    > seen under 60gig in several years, and I didn't think drives were
    > designed to last more than three years; they're not warranted any more
    > for more than one.



    I have hard drives that go back to around 1980, and have never had a
    hard drive failure. The older ones are often 500 MB and smaller. A few
    are less than 100 MB. Some have been running 24/7/365 since around 1999
    in servers.

    I did blow up one hard drive by setting it down on a curved punched
    cutout in the bottom of the case (it looks like some kind of paperwork
    retainer clip). I should have insulated it, but after the sparks flew,
    it was too late. ;-)


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  12. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    Todd illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > I asked:
    >
    >>> I know what the /swap partition is and why I want it, but I'm still a
    >>> little confused as to what /, /var, and /home are, and why i would
    >>> want a separate partition for each. But I definitely want documents
    >>> and downloads, and games like Quake and Unreal, separate from the
    >>> system files.

    >
    > Moog wrote:
    >
    >>/ is the system partition (holds everything in it's entirety unless
    >>you specify otherwise)
    >>/var is for system logs and spools.
    >>/home is the only one I would recommend setting off apart. This would
    >>hold your user configuration files and all documents.

    >
    >
    >
    >>Here's a suggestion. If you've got a 60gb hard drive, give a / partition of
    >>6-10gb. give /swap around "1.5 to 2 times your memory". and give /home the
    >>rest.
    >>
    >>You won't go far wrong and the / partition will be large enough to
    >>accomodate any large logfiles you accumulate in the /var folder it
    >>contains..

    >
    > Can you even get a 60gig hard drive anymore?


    Does it matter? I was giving you an idea on how to set up your
    partitions. I used a 60gb drive as a guide.

    > I've got a 500gig hard drive.


    Well there you have it. You're going to have quite a large /home
    partition.

    > I was letting the installer determine the size of all but
    > /home, and giving it about 32gig, which is what I usually make a
    > Windows partition.


    That's not too far off what I would give.

    > Somewhere around there is where the cluster doubles in size.


    Is this drive previously formatted as NTFS?

    I would suggest giving it a fresh format before installing. Cluster
    size issues are usually NTFS related IIRC.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  13. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    John F. Morse wrote:

    >Todd wrote:
    >>"John F. Morse" wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have probably 20 various GNU/Linux boxen running on hard drives
    >>>in the 4.3 GB range, and they aren't half full. And those have
    >>>everything in the root ("/") partition.

    >>
    >>I'm surprised you still have working drives that small. I haven't
    >>seen under 60gig in several years, and I didn't think drives were
    >>designed to last more than three years; they're not warranted any
    >>more for more than one.

    >
    >
    >I have hard drives that go back to around 1980, and have never had a
    >hard drive failure. The older ones are often 500 MB and smaller. A
    >few are less than 100 MB. Some have been running 24/7/365 since
    >around 1999 in servers.
    >
    >I did blow up one hard drive by setting it down on a curved punched
    >cutout in the bottom of the case (it looks like some kind of
    >paperwork retainer clip). I should have insulated it, but after the
    >sparks flew, it was too late. ;-)


    Hi Todd,

    I have to say that you are one very lucky man . . . I can't even tell
    you how many hard drive failures i have seen over the last 35+ years.
    Everything from just a cheap drive to drives that have been zapped by
    power surges, to drives that head head crashes during a brown out. Some
    people say 'you should have a backup in case a drive dies' I say, 'you
    should have a backup WHEN a drive dies'. Hard disk failure is a fact of
    life. That is why manufacturers all list as one of their
    specifdications on a hard disk MTBF (mean time between failures). And
    even that number is un-realistic. I normally figure the true MTBF to be
    about 30% of whatever the manufacturer says and I start doing weekly
    S.M.A.R.T. test on the drive from day one of ownership.

    --

    Sincerely,
    C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T

    CSD Computer Services
    Web site: http://csdcs.tlerma.com/
    E-mail: csdcs@tlerma.com

  14. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    C.Joseph S. Drayton wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Todd wrote:
    >>
    >>> "John F. Morse" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I have probably 20 various GNU/Linux boxen running on hard drives
    >>>> in the 4.3 GB range, and they aren't half full. And those have
    >>>> everything in the root ("/") partition.
    >>>>
    >>> I'm surprised you still have working drives that small. I haven't
    >>> seen under 60gig in several years, and I didn't think drives were
    >>> designed to last more than three years; they're not warranted any
    >>> more for more than one.
    >>>

    >> I have hard drives that go back to around 1980, and have never had a
    >> hard drive failure. The older ones are often 500 MB and smaller. A
    >> few are less than 100 MB. Some have been running 24/7/365 since
    >> around 1999 in servers.
    >>
    >> I did blow up one hard drive by setting it down on a curved punched
    >> cutout in the bottom of the case (it looks like some kind of
    >> paperwork retainer clip). I should have insulated it, but after the
    >> sparks flew, it was too late. ;-)
    >>

    >
    > Hi Todd,
    >
    > I have to say that you are one very lucky man . . . I can't even tell
    > you how many hard drive failures i have seen over the last 35+ years.
    > Everything from just a cheap drive to drives that have been zapped by
    > power surges, to drives that head head crashes during a brown out. Some
    > people say 'you should have a backup in case a drive dies' I say, 'you
    > should have a backup WHEN a drive dies'. Hard disk failure is a fact of
    > life. That is why manufacturers all list as one of their
    > specifdications on a hard disk MTBF (mean time between failures). And
    > even that number is un-realistic. I normally figure the true MTBF to be
    > about 30% of whatever the manufacturer says and I start doing weekly
    > S.M.A.R.T. test on the drive from day one of ownership.



    I suspect you were replying to me.

    I don't know about luck, but from your problem description, maybe my
    eight UPSes are what saves my HDDs?

    I also have fans blowing at PCs so the ambient air doesn't build up a
    heat pocket.

    Are you sure you've had hard drives for 35+ years? My first one was a 10
    MB "Sider" for an Apple ][. That was around 1979 or 1980, only 28-29
    years ago.

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  15. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    John F. Morse wrote:

    >C.Joseph S. Drayton wrote:
    >>John F. Morse wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Todd wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"John F. Morse" wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>I have probably 20 various GNU/Linux boxen running on hard
    >>>>>drives in the 4.3 GB range, and they aren't half full. And
    >>>>>those have everything in the root ("/") partition.
    >>>>>
    >>>>I'm surprised you still have working drives that small. I
    >>>>haven't seen under 60gig in several years, and I didn't think
    >>>>drives were designed to last more than three years; they're not
    >>>>warranted any more for more than one.
    >>>>
    >>>I have hard drives that go back to around 1980, and have never
    >>>had a hard drive failure. The older ones are often 500 MB and
    >>>smaller. A few are less than 100 MB. Some have been running
    >>>24/7/365 since around 1999 in servers.
    >>>
    >>>I did blow up one hard drive by setting it down on a curved
    >>>punched cutout in the bottom of the case (it looks like some kind
    >>>of paperwork retainer clip). I should have insulated it, but
    >>>after the sparks flew, it was too late. ;-)
    >>>

    >>
    >>Hi Todd,
    >>
    >>I have to say that you are one very lucky man . . . I can't even
    >>tell you how many hard drive failures i have seen over the last 35+
    >>years. Everything from just a cheap drive to drives that have been
    >>zapped by power surges, to drives that head head crashes during a
    >>brown out. Some people say 'you should have a backup in case a
    >>drive dies' I say, 'you should have a backup WHEN a drive dies'.
    >>Hard disk failure is a fact of life. That is why manufacturers all
    >>list as one of their specifdications on a hard disk MTBF (mean time
    >>between failures). And even that number is un-realistic. I normally
    >>figure the true MTBF to be about 30% of whatever the manufacturer
    >>says and I start doing weekly S.M.A.R.T. test on the drive from day
    >>one of ownership.

    >
    >
    >I suspect you were replying to me.
    >
    >I don't know about luck, but from your problem description, maybe my
    >eight UPSes are what saves my HDDs?
    >
    >I also have fans blowing at PCs so the ambient air doesn't build up a
    >heat pocket.
    >
    >Are you sure you've had hard drives for 35+ years? My first one was a
    >10 MB "Sider" for an Apple ][. That was around 1979 or 1980, only
    >28-29 years ago.


    Hard drives for Personal computers have been around since 1979 . . . I
    think it was then that Tandy introduced an 8.2MB hard disk for their
    TRS-80 Model II (the drive was about the same size as my 5" Samsonite
    Briefcase.) Tandy wanted $4,495 for the drive and $495 for the
    controller. You could then add three additional drives. Before that
    there were hard disk they were just a lot BIGGER and more expensive. In
    September 1956 IBM launched the 305 RAMAC, the first computer with a
    hard disk drive (HDD). The HDD weighed over a ton and stored 5MB of
    data. If this site group allowed JPGS, I would post a picture of it
    here.

    --

    Sincerely,
    C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T

    CSD Computer Services
    Web site: http://csdcs.tlerma.com/
    E-mail: csdcs@tlerma.com

  16. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    In C.Joseph S. Drayton:

    [Snip...]

    > If this site group allowed JPGS, I would post a picture of it here.


    If you mean posting JPEGs (or actually, any "binary" data like that) in a
    Usenet text group like aolu, it's not usually considered friendly.

    However, could you post it on the website in your sig, or perhaps another
    website you have available, then post its URL here?

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

  17. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...

    "C.Joseph S. Drayton" said:
    > In
    > September 1956 IBM launched the 305 RAMAC, the first computer with a
    > hard disk drive (HDD). The HDD weighed over a ton and stored 5MB of
    > data. If this site group allowed JPGS, I would post a picture of it
    > here.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_305

    Cybe R. Wizard
    --
    Nice computers don't go down.
    Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
    "The Barsoom Project"

  18. Re: Oddity with two installs on nearly identical hardware...



    "Cybe R. Wizard" wrote in message
    news:20080324180941.5d5e7439@wizardsTower...
    > "C.Joseph S. Drayton" said:
    >> In
    >> September 1956 IBM launched the 305 RAMAC, the first computer with a
    >> hard disk drive (HDD). The HDD weighed over a ton and stored 5MB of
    >> data. If this site group allowed JPGS, I would post a picture of it
    >> here.

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_305


    Notice the picture of the disk platter.. the rings are the result of a head
    crash.. I had one just like it for years until someone borrowed it.





+ Reply to Thread