Intel ss4200-e dead power supply

[SamirD]

I guess I should have clarified--my mirror is a manual mirror, so it only changes the other file if I want it to, and if a file is written and not considered 'changed' then it won't copy onto the other mirrors anyways. The problem is that the integrity check of the files is also manual and requires comparison of the source and mirrors, which takes a lot of time. But I've only had about 5 corruptions I've had to deal with in the last 5 years so it's not been a huge issue as of yet. I'm still only using 2TB drives so that helps as it limits the areal density and error rate to 1 in 10^15 or so.

A long time ago, I started always double downloading and comparing the results on any file that mattered (bios updates, etc). People have no idea how many bit errors a 'good' download can have.

 

[you2]

bit error on download have gone down due to ssl - side effect of google pushing website to use ssl for security - but parity error and similar on local machine (which is not that uncommon) can cause bit errors.
-
I used to do something similar to what you are doing but use scripts to run md5 on all files i had; keep the list for historical purposes and then make copies and verify md5 on the copy. It wasn't too bad for system copies but would be more cumbersome on invidividual files that negate the scripts. These days i trust zfs.

I guess I should have clarified--my mirror is a manual mirror, so it only changes the other file if I want it to, and if a file is written and not considered 'changed' then it won't copy onto the other mirrors anyways. The problem is that the integrity check of the files is also manual and requires comparison of the source and mirrors, which takes a lot of time. But I've only had about 5 corruptions I've had to deal with in the last 5 years so it's not been a huge issue as of yet. I'm still only using 2TB drives so that helps as it limits the areal density and error rate to 1 in 10^15 or so.

A long time ago, I started always double downloading and comparing the results on any file that mattered (bios updates, etc). People have no idea how many bit errors a 'good' download can have.

 

[SamirD]

That's true with download errors and bit rot, but that's also up there in the unlikely category (just as unlikely as bit rot itself).

I looked into md5s, but then md5s are also just files that are also susceptible to bit rot so it actually increases the size of the problems.

 

[you2]

But you have conclusiveness of an error as the value you computed at one point will no longer match the current computed value. So regardless of whether the md5 value stored rotted or the file itself you know there is an error.

That's true with download errors and bit rot, but that's also up there in the unlikely category (just as unlikely as bit rot itself).

I looked into md5s, but then md5s are also just files that are also susceptible to bit rot so it actually increases the size of the problems.

 

[SamirD]

But you have conclusiveness of an error as the value you computed at one point will no longer match the current computed value. So regardless of whether the md5 value stored rotted or the file itself you know there is an error.

Yeah, but since I only really care about the file iteself a bit rotted md5 is just a wild goose chase essentially. And md5s would have doubled the number of files effectively increasing the chance to bit rot in the first place. It wasn't a solution at all when I looked it back in the day.

 

[you2]

It does not need to double the number of files; you can store the full path of the file and the md5 of all files in a single file. Even if you had millions of files this file would be of manageable size. Anyway my last post on this topic as it is way off the thread's topic.

Yeah, but since I only really care about the file iteself a bit rotted md5 is just a wild goose chase essentially. And md5s would have doubled the number of files effectively increasing the chance to bit rot in the first place. It wasn't a solution at all when I looked it back in the day.

 

[SamirD]

It does not need to double the number of files; you can store the full path of the file and the md5 of all files in a single file. Even if you had millions of files this file would be of manageable size. Anyway my last post on this topic as it is way off the thread's topic.

I wasn't aware of that--something learned so all good.

 

[Intel_SS4200]

So great to hear!! So what version did you use? Could this be done as simple as loading up a live cd and moving the drives to the same system? I'd love to know for future reference.

I used the Fedora 30 Workstation download. Literally all I did was plug all the HD on and it immediately saw the RAID of all 4 hard drives in the Disk Utility. Oh I did have to disable my RAID controller on the tower I was using though because it was creating some kind of conflict. So I couldn't just copy the data over in the same box since the HDs I had in the box were disabled.. and I needed the power/SATA cables since I was running out of room lol. But in all I will say that if people have the ability to get a blank HD, load Fedora and have enough slots/cables to mount all 4 HD to the same machine, they are in a world of bliss seeing all their info still there

 

[SamirD]

I used the Fedora 30 Workstation download. Literally all I did was plug all the HD on and it immediately saw the RAID of all 4 hard drives in the Disk Utility. Oh I did have to disable my RAID controller on the tower I was using though because it was creating some kind of conflict. So I couldn't just copy the data over in the same box since the HDs I had in the box were disabled.. and I needed the power/SATA cables since I was running out of room lol. But in all I will say that if people have the ability to get a blank HD, load Fedora and have enough slots/cables to mount all 4 HD to the same machine, they are in a world of bliss seeing all their info still there

Thank you so much for the reply! I'm downloading it now.

Did you use the 32-bit or 64-bit version? Also, did you just do a 'live' boot or actually install it?

I'm going to be trying some 8tb drives in one of my units soon and when I do, I'll try taking the existing 4x2tb and see if a live cd boot will see them.

 

[Intel_SS4200]

I used the 64-bit version and did actually install it on a blank hard drive I had laying around. Live boot first from a DVD then it prompted me to install on the blank HD.. erased all of it and installed and then after it updated, shut it down, hooked up all the HD's from the NAS and restarted it back up with all the drives spinning and saw all the drives in the disk utility and jumped with joy... lol

 

[SamirD]

Thank you! Step by step recovery instructions saved.