[opensuse] Re: yast vs. YaST2 (was: Large disks in Opensuse 11)
Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Friday May 8 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
To be clear, YaST2 looks for the DISPLAY environment variable. If it's set, it uses the GUI mode (on the X11 display indicated by DISPLAY).
I was about to say the very same thing, but it's not correct. If you run 'yast', you get the ncurses interface, if you run YaST2 you get the GUI (assuming DISPLAY is set). I've just tried it on an 11.1 system.
What I wrote is true, and I tested all the invocations I gave.
What I wanted to say was - running 'yast', you get the ncurses interface regardless of the DISPLAY setting, with YaST2 you get the GUI when DISPLAY is set, but it defaults to 'yast' when there is no DISPLAY. /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (24.8°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
What I wanted to say was - running 'yast', you get the ncurses interface regardless of the DISPLAY setting, with YaST2 you get the GUI when DISPLAY is set, but it defaults to 'yast' when there is no DISPLAY.
Very likely, and if we look at this error message, it is indeed written "YaST2" in the upper-left corner of the terminal screen. However, I have to reiterate that whereas is has proven possible to get this version recognize the disk (albeit not partition it) no such thing was possible through yast2. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
What I wanted to say was - running 'yast', you get the ncurses interface regardless of the DISPLAY setting, with YaST2 you get the GUI when DISPLAY is set, but it defaults to 'yast' when there is no DISPLAY.
Very likely, and if we look at this error message, it is indeed written "YaST2" in the upper-left corner of the terminal screen. However, I have to reiterate that whereas is has proven possible to get this version recognize the disk (albeit not partition it) no such thing was possible through yast2.
Honestly, yast and yast2 are one and the same, they only differ in the interface. I still think you've got a hardware issue - when you can show us dmesg output similar to this: sd 11:0:0:0: [sdc] 976773168 512-byte hardware sectors (500108 MB) sd 11:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off sd 11:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 38 00 00 00 sd 11:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through sd 11:0:0:0: [sdc] 976773168 512-byte hardware sectors (500108 MB) sd 11:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off sd 11:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 38 00 00 00 sd 11:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through every time you plug the disk in, then we can start looking at other problems, but without that, the disk is indeed not being recognized by your system. /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (24.1°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
every time you plug the disk in, then we can start looking at other problems, but without that, the disk is indeed not being recognized by your system.
Absolutely: We now have abundant corroboration that the disk fails to be recognized by the system. The reason for that failure remains to be seen. Be assured that I shall inform you on the result as soon as I can get the drive into this computer! Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 16:02 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
We now have abundant corroboration that the disk fails to be recognized by the system. The reason for that failure remains to be seen.
You really should try 11.1 - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoEPLoACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XwEACfbFOXwln1bnrla6I3pBo0BlXb xeMAnR/QiiR4IUTZavHXSKUajitRnam2 =T/uN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 16:02 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
We now have abundant corroboration that the disk fails to be recognized by the system. The reason for that failure remains to be seen.
You really should try 11.1
I installed 11.1 briefly, but I experienced that the KDE4 components were watered-down and lacking in functionality. One example was that there was no metadata display in Konqueror, and the far inferior Dolphin was set as a file browser. So I decided that it was not yet ready for prime time and re-installed 11.0. Whether or not 11.1 is more or less stable than 11.0 - I have no idea. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday May 8 2009, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
...
You really should try 11.1
I installed 11.1 briefly, but I experienced that the KDE4 components were watered-down and lacking in functionality. One example was that there was no metadata display in Konqueror, and the far inferior Dolphin was set as a file browser. So I decided that it was not yet ready for prime time and re-installed 11.0.
Whether or not 11.1 is more or less stable than 11.0 - I have no idea.
I'm using 11.1 with KDE 3.5, which is supported and emminently feasible. It is also the case that KDE 3.5 and KDE 4.x can operate side-by-side with little interference. There are some caveats about installing to actually _get_ KDE 3.5, but once you've done about three or four installs to figure out the trick, it's no problem.
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
* Per Inge Oestmoen
Carlos E. R. wrote:
You really should try 11.1
I installed 11.1 briefly, but I experienced that the KDE4 components were watered-down and lacking in functionality. One example was that there was no metadata display in Konqueror, and the far inferior Dolphin was set as a file browser. So I decided that it was not yet ready for prime time and re-installed 11.0.
Whether or not 11.1 is more or less stable than 11.0 - I have no idea.
I don't believe the comment was inferring that you *sould* upgrade but that 11.1 *might* see your remote disk. And, using one of the "live" cd's would be a simple way to affirm that it was not an 11.0 vs 11.1 problem. gud luk, -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 2009/05/08 10:27 (GMT-0400) Patrick Shanahan composed:
* Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
You really should try 11.1 ... Whether or not 11.1 is more or less stable than 11.0 - I have no idea.
I don't believe the comment was inferring that you *sould* upgrade but that 11.1 *might* see your remote disk.
And, using one of the "live" cd's would be a simple way to affirm that it was not an 11.0 vs 11.1 problem.
His USB device was *once* seen by Vista His USB device was several times seen by 11.0 His USB device was several times unseen by 11.0 His USB device was *never* seen by Mac 10.5.x Given the reliability of Mac OS with external drives, and the history of this device and the OP's other USB devices in 11.0, I think it _highly_ unlikely a live CD or 11.1 would have any better success with this USB device, but rather _highly_ probable that the problem is the exclusive domain of the USB device itself, or the cabling used to connect it to the WD SATA HD inside it or to the USB ports. -- "A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." Proverbs 29:11 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Felix Miata wrote:
His USB device was *once* seen by Vista His USB device was several times seen by 11.0 His USB device was several times unseen by 11.0 His USB device was *never* seen by Mac 10.5.x
Yes, this is correct. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 11:02 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
His USB device was *once* seen by Vista
On a different machine. And there are issues with 11.0 and USB disks.
His USB device was several times seen by 11.0
Not fully.
His USB device was several times unseen by 11.0 His USB device was *never* seen by Mac 10.5.x
Given the reliability of Mac OS with external drives, and the history of this device and the OP's other USB devices in 11.0, I think it _highly_ unlikely a live CD or 11.1 would have any better success with this USB device, but rather _highly_ probable that the problem is the exclusive domain of the USB device itself, or the cabling used to connect it to the WD SATA HD inside it or to the USB ports.
It is still usefull to try 11.1; but not a live, rather a fully updated system in another partition. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoEp4cACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XOcQCdEDHwHvH6Hc4pTiuCDXkzfsML 5u4AniQGuRee6ARHpAJpEa57oiRK0j3v =EPL9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 2009/05/08 23:43 (GMT+0200) Carlos E. R. composed:
On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 11:02 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
His USB device was *once* seen by Vista
On a different machine. And there are issues with 11.0 and USB disks.
No issues with 11.0 and his other USB disks.
His USB device was several times seen by 11.0
Not fully.
/proc/partitions told me all I needed to know. It was there, however briefly...
His USB device was several times unseen by 11.0
...and then it wasn't.
His USB device was *never* seen by Mac 10.5.x
Given the reliability of Mac OS with external drives, and the history of this device and the OP's other USB devices in 11.0, I think it _highly_ unlikely a live CD or 11.1 would have any better success with this USB device, but rather _highly_ probable that the problem is the exclusive domain of the USB device itself, or the cabling used to connect it to the WD SATA HD inside it or to the USB ports.
It is still usefull to try 11.1; but not a live, rather a fully updated system in another partition.
I really don't think the bother of a 11.1 installation prior to testing and partitioning the HD while directly attached to an SATA port stands much chance of providing useful data, except maybe to other users or potential users of his model WD SATA HD and/or USB enclosure. Had the Mac not failed to ever see it my opinion would have been different. I have to think any USB device so well designed for Windows that a Mac cannot see it stands little change of being reliably useful to anyone not booted to Windows. -- "A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." Proverbs 29:11 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 18:30 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/05/08 23:43 (GMT+0200) Carlos E. R. composed:
On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 11:02 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
His USB device was *once* seen by Vista
On a different machine. And there are issues with 11.0 and USB disks.
No issues with 11.0 and his other USB disks.
Yes, there are issues. I have them reported, they were solved in 11.1. Maybe they don't affect him, maybe they do. His disk is a large one, might not be fully supported.
His USB device was several times seen by 11.0
Not fully.
/proc/partitions told me all I needed to know. It was there, however briefly...
Not true. If you read carefully the log entries, there were missing lines, as Per Jessen pointed out.
It is still usefull to try 11.1; but not a live, rather a fully updated system in another partition.
I really don't think the bother of a 11.1 installation prior to testing and partitioning the HD while directly attached to an SATA port stands much chance of providing useful data, except maybe to other users or potential users of his model WD SATA HD and/or USB enclosure.
Direct connection might work, yes. But Vista saw the drive fine, so the disk is supposedly good. The issue might be software support. So we can learn something from direct connection, so we can learn from newer software (kernel) version. One doesn't negate the other. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoEuOMACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XznACfZBSBzkFlZLlzQ2ipzPwFZTHj 3OQAnjPMf4NZWeRklGSv+Omvgm9Mzzhr =PmMc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 2009/05/09 00:57 (GMT+0200) Carlos E. R. composed:
On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 18:30 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/05/08 23:43 (GMT+0200) Carlos E. R. composed:
On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 11:02 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
His USB device was *once* seen by Vista
On a different machine. And there are issues with 11.0 and USB disks.
No issues with 11.0 and his other USB disks.
Yes, there are issues. I have them reported,
Maybe you are not so good with English as your native language? There were _no_ issues with 11.0 and *** H I S *** other USB disks, which you could not have reported, since problems with *** H I S *** other USB disks and 11.0 have not been reported to us.
His USB device was several times seen by 11.0
Not fully.
/proc/partitions told me all I needed to know. It was there, however briefly...
Not true.
Absolutely true. Read what I wrote again. /proc/partitions told *** M E *** all *** I *** needed to know, which is that: 1-sometimes the kernel sees it, and sometimes not 2-there are no recognizable partitions on it (confirmed by the OP's writings upthread - he tried, but failed, to create any)
I really don't think the bother of a 11.1 installation prior to testing and partitioning the HD while directly attached to an SATA port stands much chance of providing useful data, except maybe to other users or potential users of his model WD SATA HD and/or USB enclosure.
But Vista saw the drive fine, so the
We didn't get details on what Vista did. We do know that the OP did not permit the Vista user to attempt to partition it, but he did not say how many attempts were made to connect or disconnect it from Vista, or whether more than one was required to achieve success.
disk is supposedly good. The issue might be software support. So we can learn something from direct connection, so we can learn from newer software (kernel) version. One doesn't negate the other.
Have you read all the OP's posts in this thread? We can't expect him to reinstall a previously rejected OS just so that _maybe_ _we_ can learn more than what we already know. The next order of business is as several of us recommended, and the OP concurred, which is to directly connect the WD SATA HD to a motherboard SATA port to determine if it is the HD itself that has a problem. If the HD works on the SATA port, then the next step should be to use his external enclosure's SATA port, instead of its USB port, to connect to his computer's SATA port. If that also works, then the likelihood of USB failure goes from high to certain, from which it will remain to determine whether the enclosure can be reliably used on _any_ computer, or if in fact the problem is with _both_ 11.0 _and_ with Mac 10.5.x. I'm betting there's nothing that can be done with any OS that can make that particular device work reliably in USB mode. -- "A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." Proverbs 29:11 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sorry that I havn't read the entire thread, it's so long. Per, have you tried plug an external power supplier to the 'huge' disk. Sometimes the disk doesn't work simply because one usb port cann't support enough power for it. I have encountered this several times. Or try plug it to the port provided by the motherboard instead of a hub. Regards Yang Bo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Yang Bo wrote:
Sorry that I havn't read the entire thread, it's so long.
Per, have you tried plug an external power supplier to the 'huge' disk. Sometimes the disk doesn't work simply because one usb port cann't support enough power for it. I have encountered this several times.
Or try plug it to the port provided by the motherboard instead of a hub.
It is not a hub, it is an external HDD enclosure with its own power supply. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Felix Miata wrote:
We didn't get details on what Vista did. We do know that the OP did not permit the Vista user to attempt to partition it, but he did not say how many attempts were made to connect or disconnect it from Vista, or whether more than one was required to achieve success.
The shop assistant was asked by me to attach the USB enclosure with my 1 Tb drive to his Vista machine. That machine recognized the drive immediately, and only this one attempt was made.
Have you read all the OP's posts in this thread? We can't expect him to reinstall a previously rejected OS just so that _maybe_ _we_ can learn more than what we already know. The next order of business is as several of us recommended, and the OP concurred, which is to directly connect the WD SATA HD to a motherboard SATA port to determine if it is the HD itself that has a problem.
That is going to be the next step, yes. I may also attach another HDD enclosure of the same type with another 1 Tb disk. Yes, I bought a pair so that I can have double backups.
If the HD works on the SATA port, then the next step should be to use his external enclosure's SATA port, instead of its USB port, to connect to his computer's SATA port. If that also works, then the likelihood of USB failure goes from high to certain, from which it will remain to determine whether the enclosure can be reliably used on _any_ computer, or if in fact the problem is with _both_ 11.0 _and_ with Mac 10.5.x. I'm betting there's nothing that can be done with any OS that can make that particular device work reliably in USB mode.
Windows Vista is so far the only operating system that could see the disk with no problems. Significantly, MAC OSX could not see the drive at all, so we can reasonably assume that Linux is not at fault. There is still a possibility that it is the enclosure itself that is defect or incompatible. It is a Taiwanese Akasa thing - not the cheapest but perhaps its componentry is not up to the task with terabyte drives. It is however mysterious that Vista apparently had no difficulty with the drive. The cables and everything was the same I have tried with Linux and MAC with no success. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 19:37 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
Maybe you are not so good with English as your native language? There were _no_ issues with 11.0 and
*** H I S ***
other USB disks, which you could not have reported, since problems with
*** H I S ***
other USB disks and 11.0 have not been reported to us.
No need to be so offensive. There are known issues with 11.0 and USB disks (Bugzilla). Some people, some disks, not all, are affected. He might.
needed to know, which is that:
1-sometimes the kernel sees it, and sometimes not 2-there are no recognizable partitions on it (confirmed by the OP's writings upthread - he tried, but failed, to create any)
Even the times the kernel sees his drive, it doesn't give a full report; and when he tries to partition it, it disappears. I can't consider that as the kernel fully seeing the drive.
Have you read all the OP's posts in this thread?
Yes, I have.
We can't expect him to reinstall a previously rejected OS just so that _maybe_ _we_ can learn more than what we already know. The next order of business is as several of us recommended, and the OP concurred, which is to directly connect the WD SATA HD to a motherboard SATA port to determine if it is the HD itself that has a problem.
Yes, I concur that connecting directly to the SATA port is a good procedure, but I am of the opinion that testing with 11.1 will also be a good procedure. Both tests can give useful data. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoFV2YACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VpQACfT3YqRstMmo8jlP5FV+UbrHop yloAoInbclGMkbnEkgsQZTJwMAygEBqw =yrKB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 18:30 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
No issues with 11.0 and his other USB disks.
Yes, there are issues. I have them reported, they were solved in 11.1. Maybe they don't affect him, maybe they do. His disk is a large one, might not be fully supported.
What issues are there with opensuse 11 and USB? Are they not solved in my 2.6.25.20-01 kernel? Is there a newer kernel with a solution? By the way, no other USB units, including several 500 Gb disks, have had problems in my system. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, 2009-05-09 at 11:29 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
On Friday, 2009-05-08 at 18:30 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
No issues with 11.0 and his other USB disks.
Yes, there are issues. I have them reported, they were solved in 11.1. Maybe they don't affect him, maybe they do. His disk is a large one, might not be fully supported.
What issues are there with opensuse 11 and USB? Are they not solved in my 2.6.25.20-01 kernel? Is there a newer kernel with a solution?
Notice that there is no such thing as "opensuse 11". There is SLES/SLED 11, there is openSUSE 11.0, and there is openSUSE 11.1. You are using "openSUSE 11.0" (I know because you listed the kernel version as 2.6.25.20-0.1, on Wed, 06 May 2009 14:56:19 +0200), which means that there is a newer openSUSE with a newer kernel (2.6.27.21-0.1.2) By the way, my kernel version is 2.6.25.20-01-default. The issues with USB and disks in OS 11.0 do not affect everybody, and not every disk. It affects one of mine (corrupted data). But knowing that sometimes there are issues and that they were corrected recently in 11.1 only would be enough to at least try that version. I don't like 11.1, I don't use it; I still have problems with it (kernel issues). But I have one partition with it which I use when I have to write to that particular USB disk. At least we'd learn if that solves your problem or not.
By the way, no other USB units, including several 500 Gb disks, have had problems in my system.
I know. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoFVU8ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WFeQCffFAsRNTYXUtGEcvVq6vOAzU4 1LEAn05MmxHWUEyrEXYAc5TV+5LQ0NP3 =dsC4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hello all! I am now able to report on the very latest development. This morning, I decided to take another Western Digital Caviar Black 1 Tb disk, and install it into another Akasa enclosure of the same type. Thus, I had the same type of disk in the same type of cabinet as I had when I experienced failure to see and partition that drive. Upon attaching the drive to the USB port, I was amazed when I opened YaST, and the disk showed no problems - and with the correct size whereas the other disk in the other enclosure was listed as 2 Tb and then dropped out in many instances. This time there were no problems whatsoever in partitioning and formatting, and I am only facing the dilemma of what file system I want to format it with. Thus, we have narrowed the whole thing down to the source of error being either in the other disk or the other enclosure. The precise answer can of course be found by swapping the two disks and put the former one who failed to be partitioned into the new enclosure. Which is not a very big thing at all. I am thankful for the inputs so far, and of course for the courteous atmosphere that prevailed during the whole discussion with very few heated words. Feel free to comment, but before I swap the drives in order to find out, I would like to receive suggestions as to what file system I should choose. I originally thought to use FAT, but some of you advised against it in favor of Ext3. Personally I would like ReiserFS, but that is more difficult to read/write from/to from a Windows machine. Also, I have a MacBook Pro which to my knowledge can read neither ReiserFS nor Ext3. That would make FAT the preferred choice unless there are weighty reasons to go with something else. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Per Inge Oestmoen
Upon attaching the drive to the USB port, I was amazed when I opened YaST, and the disk showed no problems - and with the correct size whereas the other disk in the other enclosure was listed as 2 Tb and then dropped out in many instances. This time there were no problems whatsoever in partitioning and formatting, and I am only facing the dilemma of what file system I want to format it with.
Glad to hear that you have made progress. As for file systems, you should probably just use NTFS if you need to be able to read write from Windows. That should have the best compatibiltity and is more efficient than FAT with larger volumes. OS X Has limited support for NTFS. There is also: http://www.paragon-software.com/home/ntfs-mac/ But it's commercial and costs $40. Kinda pricy just to be able to use NTFS on Mac. I believe there is ntfs-3g support for OS X, but I don't use OS X much so I dunno. Good luck -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday May 13 2009, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Hello all!
I am now able to report on the very latest development.
...
Thus, we have narrowed the whole thing down to the source of error being either in the other disk or the other enclosure. The precise answer can of course be found by swapping the two disks and put the former one who failed to be partitioned into the new enclosure. Which is not a very big thing at all.
Great news! I hope the culprit is under warranty, especially if it's the drive.
...
Feel free to comment, but before I swap the drives in order to find out, I would like to receive suggestions as to what file system I should choose. I originally thought to use FAT, but some of you advised against it in favor of Ext3. Personally I would like ReiserFS, but that is more difficult to read/write from/to from a Windows machine. Also, I have a MacBook Pro which to my knowledge can read neither ReiserFS nor Ext3. That would make FAT the preferred choice unless there are weighty reasons to go with something else.
Personally, I'm in the XFS crowd. FAT would be the only really bad choice. If Windows interoperability is a factor, then NTFS is your only good option. And, of course, if you need to interoperate with antique Windows systems that have only FAT, then you really have no choice.
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Daylight hours getting pretty long, eh? Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Wednesday May 13 2009, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Thus, we have narrowed the whole thing down to the source of error being either in the other disk or the other enclosure. The precise answer can of course be found by swapping the two disks and put the former one who failed to be partitioned into the new enclosure. Which is not a very big thing at all.
Great news! I hope the culprit is under warranty, especially if it's the drive.
Thank you! Luckily, both the enclosure and the drive is under warranty, so I only have to face some minor inconvenience by going back to the computer store.
Feel free to comment, but before I swap the drives in order to find out, I would like to receive suggestions as to what file system I should choose.
Personally, I'm in the XFS crowd. FAT would be the only really bad choice. If Windows interoperability is a factor, then NTFS is your only good option. And, of course, if you need to interoperate with antique Windows systems that have only FAT, then you really have no choice.
I have not yet understood why FAT is such a terribly bad choice. Is there a greater risk of data corruption and loss with that file system? By the way, NTFS is no option, SuSE 11.0 will not format with that one. If there are no decisive arguments in disfavor of FAT I will probably choose that.
Daylight hours getting pretty long, eh?
Now the day here lasts to at least 10 PM. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday May 13 2009, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Wednesday May 13 2009, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
...
Feel free to comment, but before I swap the drives in order to find out, I would like to receive suggestions as to what file system I should choose.
Personally, I'm in the XFS crowd. FAT would be the only really bad choice. If Windows interoperability is a factor, then NTFS is your only good option. And, of course, if you need to interoperate with antique Windows systems that have only FAT, then you really have no choice.
I have not yet understood why FAT is such a terribly bad choice. Is there a greater risk of data corruption and loss with that file system? By the way, NTFS is no option, SuSE 11.0 will not format with that one. If there are no decisive arguments in disfavor of FAT I will probably choose that.
FAT is wasteful of space (increasingly so as the volume capacity grows), prone to fragmentation, has no journal and has only a very minimal permission model, lacking any notion of user identification or file ownership. I forget what file name restrictions it imposes, but I'm pretty sure not all of Unix's valid names will work there. FAT wasn't much in its day and it is now very archaic.
...
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, 2009-05-13 at 15:27 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
I have not yet understood why FAT is such a terribly bad choice. Is there a greater risk of data corruption and loss with that file system?
Probably because it is bad taste to use the enemy's filesystem format >:-P No, it is not so bad, specially if you use it to backup files, not for continuous use (fragmentation is not that big an issue, then). The problems are that there is a per file size limit of... was it 2 GiB or 4 GiB? I never remember. And that it can not store Linux filesystem attributes and permissions. Another one is that Microsoft might one day exercise its patents rights over it (like it did with Tom-Tom recently).
By the way, NTFS is no option, SuSE 11.0 will not format with that one. If there are no decisive arguments in disfavor of FAT I will probably choose that.
Not that I know, unless you intend to store video content (the size limit is a problem). In that case, XFS is preferable. On the other hand, if you want to share files with other (non Linux) machines, FAT has an edge. By the way, I find NTFS support in Linux to be slow and cpu intensive. But it works. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoK43YACgkQtTMYHG2NR9W1JwCeK5atggicSQazNfNIPh3HvQmT ZysAnRCH/ioj/+Xt7N/tX01TGL9SmiWC =PMJE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
I have not yet understood why FAT is such a terribly bad choice. Is there a greater risk of data corruption and loss with that file system? By the way, NTFS is no option, SuSE 11.0 will not format with that one. If there are no decisive arguments in disfavor of FAT I will probably choose that.
Just make sure you use FAT-32. mkfs-vfat does NOT default to 32-bits. I've had to use FAT-32 on large disks because of a customer requirement. The really big disadvantage in my experience is that you can't use symbolic links on a FAT partition. The fsck check times on reboot can also add up. I've got one box that takes two hours to boot up because of all the FAT partitions (customer requirements again). Regards, Lew -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hello all! Today I installed the troublesome disk into another Akasa enclosure. It was then recognized correctly as a 1 Tb drive, partitioned and is ready to be formatted. Thus, the culprit has been identified as the Akasa enclosure. No drive works in that one which is obviously defect. Now I enjoy two 1 Tb Western Digital Black drives with no problems. Thanks for the discussion and for all help. The remaining question is whether I should go for OpenSuSE 11.1 instead of 11.0, or perhaps choose OpenSuSe 10.3 if that one is even better even though not the most recent one. Is there any consensus about which version is preferable? Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 2009/05/15 12:35 (GMT+0200) Per Inge Oestmoen composed:
Today I installed the troublesome disk into another Akasa enclosure.
It was then recognized correctly as a 1 Tb drive, partitioned and is ready to be formatted.
Thus, the culprit has been identified as the Akasa enclosure. No drive works in that one which is obviously defect.
Now I enjoy two 1 Tb Western Digital Black drives with no problems.
Thanks for the discussion and for all help.
The remaining question is whether I should go for OpenSuSE 11.1 instead of 11.0, or perhaps choose OpenSuSe 10.3 if that one is even better even though not the most recent one. Is there any consensus about which version is preferable?
No consensus. There are different bugs in each. You need to find out which will cause you least grief. Video drivers are one thing to focus on. If you use Intel, you might be least happy with 11.1, but that depends particularly on which Intel chip you have. Package management (mostly zypper-related) is most evolved in 11.1. I don't remember all the other reasons any more, but the system I use the most was built about a month after I got my 11.1 retail box, and uses 11.0 with a Radeon gfxcard. My other systems get Factory booted the most, and of those you named, 10.3 gets booted the least. -- "A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." Proverbs 29:11 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/05/15 12:35 (GMT+0200) Per Inge Oestmoen composed:
The remaining question is whether I should go for OpenSuSE 11.1 instead of 11.0, or perhaps choose OpenSuSe 10.3 if that one is even better even though not the most recent one. Is there any consensus about which version is preferable?
No consensus. There are different bugs in each. You need to find out which will cause you least grief.
Video drivers are one thing to focus on. If you use Intel, you might be least happy with 11.1, but that depends particularly on which Intel chip you have.
Package management (mostly zypper-related) is most evolved in 11.1.
I have found that package management was the worst part of 11.1. I could not install any backup rpm's through YaST, but had to use command line for every rpm install. No, I am not interested in online "repositories." I want to download everything, store and back it up for future installations. Is the package management fixed now in 11.1 upgrades? Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, 2009-05-15 at 14:32 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Package management (mostly zypper-related) is most evolved in 11.1.
I have found that package management was the worst part of 11.1. I could not install any backup rpm's through YaST, but had to use command line for every rpm install.
No, I am not interested in online "repositories." I want to download everything, store and back it up for future installations.
Is the package management fixed now in 11.1 upgrades?
Did you fill a bugzilla? I'm not aware that it is broken. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoNZ+oACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WgjgCdFtzqXwJBo0EHbt+uxR8JqxjP TFwAnRpX5FqEgk0TzyP6qF0hM9jun3NG =9OL6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
By the way, NTFS is no option, SuSE 11.0 will not format with that one.
Are you sure? I think we've been formatting ntfs drives via 10.3 and 11.0, but I could be wrong. And we are up to 11.1 on most of our machines now so I can't easily test. Formating via linux also gives you better access to control some of the ntfs features. One in particular is that ntfs under windows defaults to maintaining an index of all the data on the drive. We dislike that and disable it during the formating step. Under Windows you have to format first, then remember to back into the filesystem properties and disable the indexing. Greg -- Greg Freemyer Head of EDD Tape Extraction and Processing team Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer First 99 Days Litigation White Paper - http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/99%20Days%20whitepaper.pdf The Norcross Group The Intersection of Evidence & Technology http://www.norcrossgroup.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, 2009-05-13 at 13:24 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Feel free to comment, but before I swap the drives in order to find out, I would like to receive suggestions as to what file system I should choose. I originally thought to use FAT, but some of you advised against it in favor of Ext3. Personally I would like ReiserFS, but that is more difficult to read/write from/to from a Windows machine. Also, I have a MacBook Pro which to my knowledge can read neither ReiserFS nor Ext3. That would make FAT the preferred choice unless there are weighty reasons to go with something else.
Unfortunately, reiserfs on external disk via USB on 11.0 is faulty: the filesystem can get very much corrupted, needing a rebuild that takes hours. I haven't lost data yet, but it is a real pain in the backside. On 10.3 or 11.1 it works fine. There is a bugzilla, but no plans to correct it in 11.0, as it works in 11.1. Not everybody is affected, though. Plus, they have already hinted that they want to drop reiserfs support in the future... What I don't like of ext3 for external media is that it can take ages to fsck. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoK4TUACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XF+ACfRZL6rY96NVOWPvoPs6L5vqcC Zm4An1410jFJb0u/qFzE1VV4VzHdxD3w =Q3S/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
What I don't like of ext3 for external media is that it can take ages to fsck.
So I choose FAT then. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, 2009-05-15 at 11:05 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
What I don't like of ext3 for external media is that it can take ages to fsck.
So I choose FAT then.
I have no experience of fsck-ing a large FAT partition over USB... - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoNfK8ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UhnQCdEykxRtpLK0mY60B43Q4oGP64 BTwAnjRmnsO53jk9QThLk2bad9Xxxx11 =g3zS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 16:31 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Friday, 2009-05-15 at 11:05 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
What I don't like of ext3 for external media is that it can take ages to fsck.
So I choose FAT then.
I have no experience of fsck-ing a large FAT partition over USB...
Can you fsck a FAT partition? -- Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems / Ramböll RST Ramböll Sverige AB Krukmakargatan 21 P.O. Box 17009 SE-104 62 Stockholm, Sweden Office: Int +46 8-615 60 20 Mobile: Int +46 70-815 1696 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 16:38 +0200, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
Can you fsck a FAT partition?
Sorry for the dumb knee-jerk reaction: "man 8 fsck.vfat" tells all... -- Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems / Ramböll RST Ramböll Sverige AB Krukmakargatan 21 P.O. Box 17009 SE-104 62 Stockholm, Sweden Office: Int +46 8-615 60 20 Mobile: Int +46 70-815 1696 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, 2009-05-15 at 16:41 +0200, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 16:38 +0200, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
Can you fsck a FAT partition?
Sorry for the dumb knee-jerk reaction: "man 8 fsck.vfat" tells all...
X'-) No problem :-) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoNgusACgkQtTMYHG2NR9U3dQCdFlQlEpTi4LgSKUpYrf+J+sUj 908AnRWkA9XAHnEezlTr9tKveTnZVewJ =XN/d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (11)
-
Carlos E. R. -
Felix Miata -
Greg Freemyer -
Larry Stotler -
Lew Wolfgang -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Inge Oestmoen -
Per Jessen -
Randall R Schulz -
Roger Oberholtzer -
Yang Bo