Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way.
It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end
I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start
on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the
backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I
restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I
suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as
startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless
it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

2) If it is not salveageable, are there any makes of HD to prefer or
avoid when buying a replacement?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Liz Tuddenham wrote:

[snip]

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

Before you even think about replacing or salvaging the disk, get another
backup (or three) system(s) in place so you can protect your data.
Given your historical hardware and software, perhaps one or more
completely duplicate sets of hardware and software and a synchronisation procedure so all the machines have the same - up-to-date - information.

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless
it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

2) If it is not salveageable, are there any makes of HD to prefer or
avoid when buying a replacement?

--
Graham J

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <1q3622r.13vyyvxsis70yN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way.
It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end
I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start
on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I
suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as
startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

stop using it until you get a replacement drive (or more than one, if
it's important stuff).

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless
it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

from your description, it sounds like it might just be directory
corruption, in which case, disk warrior can fix it.

if there are more serious problems, then recycle it.

2) If it is not salveageable, are there any makes of HD to prefer or
avoid when buying a replacement?

they're mostly the same. on occasion, there's a bad batch which causes
a higher number of failures. there are also good batches that last
longer than usual.

nothing is perfect in this world, and if you search, you'll find horror
stories of every drive manufacturer (and everything else for that
matter).

backblaze buys a *lot* of drives and has reports on the failure rates,
however, their usage pattern is very different than average use so it
isn't necessarily relevant. still, there is some value to their
reports.

<https://www.backblaze.com/b2/hard-drive-test-data.html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <XUl*ql+5y@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way.
It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a multi-coloured rectangle.

...

I don't really know HFS(+) but it's possible recovery tools may be able to make something of it. I would leave it alone until such time as you're in a position to do it: attempting to fiddle with it may make things worse.

if it's directory corruption, diskwarrior will almost certainly be able
to repair it.

if that doesn't work, there are tools to scavenge files (which will
work for any file system).

It is generally a good idea to take a bit-for-bit image of any failing
drive. Keep that as the golden master copy, and make another copy of that image to run the recovery tools on. That way you aren't using any media
that may be failing.

diskwarrior is read-only, and only updates the directory *if* the user
is satisfied with the repair (which is done in memory).

it's also possible to use the updated directory (while in memory) to
copy the files without updating the drive itself.

There are various Linux tools to do this, although you can do a bit image on OS X if you have access to that.

linux tools are the wrong choice for mac disk problems.

A USB to SATA adapter (or enclosure) is a
good way to connect the old drive. You'd need storage space of at least
2-3x the capacity of the failing drive to do the recovery.

nope. only sufficient space for the amount of recovered data is needed,
which is always less than the total capacity of the drive (assuming
scavenging is required).

If you've had a problem with a drive, I would not use it for storing
critical data on again. Discs are cheap, data isn't worth the risk.
By all means demote it to storing unimportant data on, like downloaded
videos or something.

yep, or just recycle it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way.
It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end
I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start
on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I
suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as
startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless
it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

I don't really know HFS(+) but it's possible recovery tools may be able to
make something of it. I would leave it alone until such time as you're in a position to do it: attempting to fiddle with it may make things worse.

It is generally a good idea to take a bit-for-bit image of any failing
drive. Keep that as the golden master copy, and make another copy of that image to run the recovery tools on. That way you aren't using any media
that may be failing.

There are various Linux tools to do this, although you can do a bit image on
OS X if you have access to that. A USB to SATA adapter (or enclosure) is a good way to connect the old drive. You'd need storage space of at least
2-3x the capacity of the failing drive to do the recovery.

If you've had a problem with a drive, I would not use it for storing
critical data on again. Discs are cheap, data isn't worth the risk.
By all means demote it to storing unimportant data on, like downloaded
videos or something.

2) If it is not salveageable, are there any makes of HD to prefer or
avoid when buying a replacement?

With a machine that old, it's likely to depend on what it will talk to. I suppose there's an IDE card and then an IDE to SATA adapter after it?
Does the vintage MacOS community have any recommendations on suitable
drives are usable through SATA adapters?

I don't know vintage Macs but I could well imagine going above a certain
size is a problem - 2TB is a BIOS limitation on PCs, for example.

If I had to stick a pin, I'd try another new Toshiba 1TB drive - it won't be exactly the same, but perhaps less likely to introduce extra
incompatibilities. They're not particularly expensive.

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/12/2022 16:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way.
It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end
I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start
on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I
suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as
startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless
it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

2) If it is not salveageable, are there any makes of HD to prefer or
avoid when buying a replacement?

So sorry to hear your tale of woe, Liz. :-(

If all else fails for you, I have had good results from using this
product:-

https://www.cleverfiles.com

Good luck! 🙂

--
Kind regards,
David

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <nvNnL.20613$mmyc.18342@fx37.iad>, David Brooks
<David.is@home.now> wrote:

https://www.cleverfiles.com

stay the fuck away. do not even consider using that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/12/2022 23:56, nospam wrote:

In article <nvNnL.20613$mmyc.18342@fx37.iad>, David Brooks <David.is@home.now> wrote:

https://www.cleverfiles.com

stay the fuck away. do not even consider using that.

This from my investigation of the product more than 10 years ago:-

http://pindelski.org/Photography/2011/11/29/disk-drill/

--
Kind regards,
David

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <1q3622r.13vyyvxsis70yN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way.
It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end
I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start
on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the other one can be got working or replaced

stop using it until you get a replacement drive (or more than one, if
it's important stuff).

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless
it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

from your description, it sounds like it might just be directory
corruption, in which case, disk warrior can fix it.

How do I run DW if the disk won't mount?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/12/2022 12:01, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <1q3622r.13vyyvxsis70yN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way. >>> It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a
multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end >>> I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start >>> on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the
backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I
restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault >>> followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the
particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I
suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as
startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

stop using it until you get a replacement drive (or more than one, if
it's important stuff).

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless >>> it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

from your description, it sounds like it might just be directory
corruption, in which case, disk warrior can fix it.

How do I run DW if the disk won't mount?

DW does come on a USB Flashdrive, you run it in recovery mode, and use
the Terminal.

https://www.alsoft.com/guides


--
Andy H

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/12/2022 16:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way.
It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end
I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start
on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I
suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

I don't think that was entirely necessary, I think, IIRC, it only
mattered which one was 'blessed' by dropping some particular files into
the system folder (it's been a while since I used Classic though, so the
exact details are vague now).

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as
startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

No, indeed, that does look like a foobar'd drive.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless
it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

2) If it is not salveageable, are there any makes of HD to prefer or
avoid when buying a replacement?

Even if you could get it working again, I wouldn't trust it much.

In recent years I've been through a bunch of drives, WD, Toshiba,
Samsung and Seagate. Most have suffered some kind of failure, or signs
of impending failure.

The most reliable of them has been the Seagates though. I now have a 4TB Barracuda 5400rpm for my Time Machine backup, a 2TB Barracuda 7200rpm
for my Photos library.

I'm also using a 2TB SkyHawk 5400rpm Surveillance grade drive for my
media library. This is a bit of a trial really, if it lasts well, and
'seems' to give less trouble than standard drives, I intend to by this
model as a replacement going forward.

I picked the lower rpm models in the hope they might be more reliable,
and for those applications outright speed isn't essential. Although to
be honest, in the real world, it's hard to tell any difference. The
other upside is that they're slightly cheaper to buy.

--
Andy H

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <1q37lb1.17bpyez8g1o1yN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

from your description, it sounds like it might just be directory corruption, in which case, disk warrior can fix it.

How do I run DW if the disk won't mount?

by booting from another disk with disk warrior installed.

diskwarrior will see unmounted drives, unless there's a very serious
problem, one which it cannot fix anyway.. there is also a scavenge
mode, although i never had to use it.

disk warrior is also available on a usb stick (previously a cd, not
sure if that's still available), or you can create your own bootable
media.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <tnpod1$a8pi$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

The most reliable of them has been the Seagates though. I now have a 4TB Barracuda 5400rpm for my Time Machine backup, a 2TB Barracuda 7200rpm
for my Photos library.

it's more than just who makes it. individual models can have problems,
such as the seagate 1.5tb and 3tb, which were very unreliable.

all drives fail, it's just a matter of when.

I'm also using a 2TB SkyHawk 5400rpm Surveillance grade drive for my
media library. This is a bit of a trial really, if it lasts well, and
'seems' to give less trouble than standard drives, I intend to by this
model as a replacement going forward.

surveillance drives are tuned for constant writing (from the cameras)
and minimal reading, the opposite of what a media drive needs, which is
almost entirely reading (to watch/listen) and occasional updating with
new content.

consider the shingled drives, which are slow to write (due to having to
rewrite multiple tracks for minor changes) but fast for reading.

I picked the lower rpm models in the hope they might be more reliable,
and for those applications outright speed isn't essential. Although to
be honest, in the real world, it's hard to tell any difference. The
other upside is that they're slightly cheaper to buy.

they're quieter and run cooler.

i have a few 7200 rpms that are *loud*.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <HqWnL.8294$5jd8.4290@fx05.iad>, David Brooks
<David.is@home.now> wrote:

https://www.cleverfiles.com

stay the fuck away. do not even consider using that.

This from my investigation of the product more than 10 years ago:-

you don't know enough about the topic (or anything at all, really) to
be able to investigate it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/12/2022 14:37, nospam wrote:

In article <tnpod1$a8pi$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

The most reliable of them has been the Seagates though. I now have a 4TB
Barracuda 5400rpm for my Time Machine backup, a 2TB Barracuda 7200rpm
for my Photos library.

it's more than just who makes it. individual models can have problems,
such as the seagate 1.5tb and 3tb, which were very unreliable.

Indeed, but generally, over a long time, the Seagates have been the more reliable brand I've used myself.

The oldest I have still working 100% OK is a 320GB Barracuda I bought in
2006. The OE one that came with my iMac is still working fine (2013), it
was replaced by a Crucial 512GB SSD.

Most of the Toshibas didn't make it past 3 years.

all drives fail, it's just a matter of when.

I'm also using a 2TB SkyHawk 5400rpm Surveillance grade drive for my
media library. This is a bit of a trial really, if it lasts well, and
'seems' to give less trouble than standard drives, I intend to by this
model as a replacement going forward.

surveillance drives are tuned for constant writing (from the cameras)
and minimal reading, the opposite of what a media drive needs, which is almost entirely reading (to watch/listen) and occasional updating with
new content.

Indeed, I did the research on it before buying. For my needs the
differences were still minimal for performance.

consider the shingled drives, which are slow to write (due to having to rewrite multiple tracks for minor changes) but fast for reading.

Wasn't needed. It was simply a cost vs need compromise.

I picked the lower rpm models in the hope they might be more reliable,
and for those applications outright speed isn't essential. Although to
be honest, in the real world, it's hard to tell any difference. The
other upside is that they're slightly cheaper to buy.

they're quieter and run cooler.

Indeed, and, if it makes much difference, use a little less energy.

i have a few 7200 rpms that are *loud*.

Yeah, had some of those. The old Maxtors were probably the worst I've
ever owned, and the old, appropriately named, Quantum Fireballs were bad
too.

--
Andy H

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19 Dec 2022 at 16:10:26 GMT, Andy Hewitt wrote:

have a few 7200 rpms that are *loud*.

Yeah, had some of those. The old Maxtors were probably the worst I've
ever owned, and the old, appropriately named, Quantum Fireballs were bad
too.

I've a couple of 8TB s/h enterprise drives and they are very noisy - easy to hear in the room above. But then they are very quick, so hey.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/12/2022 14:37, nospam wrote:

In article <HqWnL.8294$5jd8.4290@fx05.iad>, David Brooks
<David.is@home.now> wrote:

https://www.cleverfiles.com

stay the fuck away. do not even consider using that.

This from my investigation of the product more than 10 years ago:-

A *MUST* read! http://pindelski.org/Photography/2011/11/29/disk-drill/

you don't know enough about the topic (or anything at all, really) to
be able to investigate it.

Here's a short extract from the article which you didn't read:-

Why is Recovery Vault important?

To be short: recovery vault is the technology that helps you prevent
data losses on HFS/HFS+ and FAT disks/partitions.

Why?

Unlike other file systems, HFS and HFS+ developed by Apple don't have an effective way to restore deleted data. Once the data is gone, the only
way to recover it is binary reading of hard drive sectors. While this is exactly what recovery algorithms in Disk Drill do, as a result you can
only recover the file itself, but all its properties are gone: no
original filename, no location, etc. However, the original names of the
files you deleted may be the main criteria to identify your data without reading the contents. So losing this info may be crucial. Recovery vault addresses exactly this issue and helps you recover everything in
HFS/HFS+ partitions exactly as it was there before.

How?

Recovery vault by CleverFiles is an integral part of Disk Drill. You may
enable this technology on per-disk/per-partition basis. Disks and
partitions protected with recovery vault will be monitored by the
special background service of Disk Drill for data changes. When
something's deleted, recovery vault remembers all the original
properties of the deleted items and makes it possible to easily recover
this data later on.

Important!

Recovery vault is not a panacea, while it makes data recovery algorithms
much more effective, it doesn't provide you with 100% guarantee that
ANYTHING can be recovered ANY TIME in future. Internal Mac OS algorithms extremely complex, and nobody knows or can predict when certain data is overwritten by the file system drivers.


--
An end user!
David

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <r_0oL.32474$Tcw8.27952@fx10.iad>, David Brooks
<David.is@home.now> wrote:

you don't know enough about the topic (or anything at all, really) to
be able to investigate it.

Here's a short extract from the article which you didn't read:-

i did read it, and unlike you, i understand bullshit when i see it.

Unlike other file systems, HFS and HFS+ developed by Apple don't have an effective way to restore deleted data. Once the data is gone, the only
way to recover it is binary reading of hard drive sectors.

that is not entirely correct.

While this is
exactly what recovery algorithms in Disk Drill do, as a result you can
only recover the file itself, but all its properties are gone: no
original filename, no location, etc.

very much false.

i've scavenged drives that not only have recover the file names, dates
and other metadata, but also restored the full folder hierarchy.

generic file names (e.g., image101.jpg) are not common.

if they're going to make that claim, it can only mean disk drill is not particularly good, which is no surprise.

what's actually a bigger problem is when a developer resorts to lying
to their customers to get them to buy their product.

Recovery vault by CleverFiles is an integral part of Disk Drill. You may enable this technology on per-disk/per-partition basis. Disks and
partitions protected with recovery vault will be monitored by the
special background service of Disk Drill for data changes.

that means installing software ahead of time, which won't help someone
with a sudden unexpected drive failure.

Recovery vault is not a panacea, while it makes data recovery algorithms
much more effective, it doesn't provide you with 100% guarantee that
ANYTHING can be recovered ANY TIME in future.

nothing is 100% in this world, except death.

Internal Mac OS algorithms
extremely complex, and nobody knows or can predict when certain data is overwritten by the file system drivers.

very much false. the file system is determinative and well understood.

if that were even slightly true, people would have frequent unexpected
data loss, and they do not.

now go run along and go play with the other children and let the adults
focus on real issues.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <tnq2di$cker$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

Most of the Toshibas didn't make it past 3 years.

i have 4 toshiba drives in one of my nases and it's been something like
5 years, without any issue.

as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19 Dec 2022 at 18:07:52 GMT, nospam wrote:

In article <tnq2di$cker$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

Most of the Toshibas didn't make it past 3 years.

i have 4 toshiba drives in one of my nases and it's been something like
5 years, without any issue.

as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

But the singular *can* be datum :-)

How useful the anecdote is depends on the quality - objectivity,
replicability, depth of description and analysis, findings and critique, etc.

In context, if the failure had been supported by, for example, a tear-down
that illustrated a fundamental design flaw it may well be safe to extrapolate and predict further failures with the same make/model.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <tnqd5k$drc4$1@dont-email.me>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

Most of the Toshibas didn't make it past 3 years.

i have 4 toshiba drives in one of my nases and it's been something like
5 years, without any issue.

as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

But the singular *can* be datum :-)

indeed :)

How useful the anecdote is depends on the quality - objectivity, replicability, depth of description and analysis, findings and critique, etc.

true, however, a sample of a few drives out of many millions is not
meaningful.

nothing is perfect and there will be *some* number of failures, for any product. ideally, it's very, very low, but it will never be zero.

if that number is unusually higher than similar drives, as it was with
the seagate 1.5/3tb, then there's evidence of an issue. but even with
that, not everyone who bought those had problems.

In context, if the failure had been supported by, for example, a tear-down that illustrated a fundamental design flaw it may well be safe to extrapolate and predict further failures with the same make/model.

big if.

a claim of 'i bought a drive and it failed a year later' is not that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/12/2022 19:13, RJH wrote:

On 19 Dec 2022 at 18:07:52 GMT, nospam wrote:

In article <tnq2di$cker$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

Most of the Toshibas didn't make it past 3 years.

i have 4 toshiba drives in one of my nases and it's been something like
5 years, without any issue.

as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. >

But the singular *can* be datum :-)

How useful the anecdote is depends on the quality - objectivity, replicability, depth of description and analysis, findings and critique, etc.

Indeed. It is intended as only an individuals usage information. A
starting point.

If others chime is with similar data, then it might help decide on a
choice to buy, with perhaps a lower chance of an early drive failure.
We're not trying to guarantee anything here, just offer some information
that might point towards a more reliable purchase.

If a few chime in with opposite, or varying experiences, then it's
fairly safe to assume that you just pick a drive that suits your needs
and budget. The chances are generally in favour of it will work reliably
for a certain period of time (3 years is average isn't it?), it might be
a bit shorter, it could be significantly longer.

In context, if the failure had been supported by, for example, a tear-down that illustrated a fundamental design flaw it may well be safe to extrapolate and predict further failures with the same make/model.

Yeah, I doubt you'll ever get that much detailed information just
browsing the usenet groups. At least not nowadays.

Personally, I take a bit of information from discussion groups, looks at
some online 'pro' reviews, and see if I can find any other data (such as
large server failure rates that get published).

You'll never find a definitive answer, just something that might point
you to a slightly better purchase, or at least avoid a really bad one.

--
Andy H

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/12/2022 16:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

As others have said, make making a backup of this backup drive your
first priority. Boot once from that backup to make sure it works, then disconnect it and put it somewhere safe.

If your backup was as of "last night" and you haven't done any
significant work since then I would suggest not to waste any time trying
to repair the original drive - it sounds like it might be failing anyway
and so it would only be a matter of time before it goes again. Just buy another, restore the backup onto it, and make it your new daily working
drive.

As for choice of manufacturer for replacement HD: as others have said
there's little in it these days. One consideration though: if you can
afford it then maybe go for an SSD rather than an HDD to get a speed boost?

Regards,
--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/12/2022 23:45, Bruce Horrocks wrote:

As for choice of manufacturer for replacement HD: as others have said
there's little in it these days. One consideration though: if you can
afford it then maybe go for an SSD rather than an HDD to get a speed boost?

Liz's Mac has an IDE drive though, now called PATA. To my surprise you
can actually get SSDs with PATA interfaces, though not very many and
they're from unknown Chinese brands like Wun Hung Lo, etc.

--
Chris

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <1q37lb1.17bpyez8g1o1yN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

from your description, it sounds like it might just be directory corruption, in which case, disk warrior can fix it.

How do I run DW if the disk won't mount?

by booting from another disk with disk warrior installed.

diskwarrior will see unmounted drives, unless there's a very serious
problem

DW can't see the drive. I have managed to sort it - see later posts.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/12/2022 10:36, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

How do I run DW if the disk won't mount?

DW does come on a USB Flashdrive, you run it in recovery mode, and use
the Terminal.

OS8.6 doesn't have a Terminal.

Ah, yes, it's been that long now...

IIRC DW is also able to run as a bootable USB drive. That might help.

This is all assuming of course you have a copy of DW, and it's worth
mucking about with here - personally I don't think is, seems to me it's
just better to get a new drive, and dispose of the failed unit.

FWIW, DW hasn't been updated in a long time now. They've updated their
website info a bit, but only to inform about the lack of support for
APFS drives, and the Mx series machines. The software hasn't been
updated much since APFS came about.

It's started to make it look like a very expensive bit of software now, considering its diminishing usefulness.

--
Andy H

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Andy Hewitt <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

On 19/12/2022 12:01, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <1q3622r.13vyyvxsis70yN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way. >>> It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of >>> the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a >>> multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end >>> I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start >>> on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the >>> backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I
restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault >>> followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the >>> particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I
suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as
startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the >>> other one can be got working or replaced

stop using it until you get a replacement drive (or more than one, if
it's important stuff).

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless >>> it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

from your description, it sounds like it might just be directory
corruption, in which case, disk warrior can fix it.

How do I run DW if the disk won't mount?

DW does come on a USB Flashdrive, you run it in recovery mode, and use
the Terminal.

OS8.6 doesn't have a Terminal.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way.
It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end
I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start
on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I
suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as
startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless
it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

2) If it is not salveageable, are there any makes of HD to prefer or
avoid when buying a replacement?

Thanks to everyone who replied to this. I've now got it sorted (I
hope!) and will describe what worked (just in case anyone else ever gets
in this pickle).

The problem appeared to occur whenever the two drives ran at the same
time; individually thsy worked, as long as the other one was physically disconnected. Regardless of which drive was selected as the Startup
Drive, the crash occurred at the point where the second drive tried to
mount.

I individually started each drive with Extensions off and rebuilt the
Desktop (This may not have been absolutely necessary, but it was a good
start.) Reconnected both drives and started with extensions off -- both
drives then managed to run at the same time without crashing. Ran a
copy of Disk Warrior on the Backup Drive to operate on the Main Drive.

Each drive has two partitions, 'system' and 'data'. DW found several
files with duplicate names on the 'system' partition but no faults on
the 'data' partition. Possibly these duplicate files had been
faithfully copied by the backup software, resulting in some sort of
filename clash when both the Main and Backup drives were mounted at the
same time.

It appears that, apart from some minor corruption, there is probably
nothing physically wrong with the Main Drive, so I'll continue using it
for now. I have bought a 1TB 'laptop' drive which I can keep an updated 'archive' copy of everything on, so making that copy will be my next
move.


Just an odd thought... Would there be any advantyage in using an SSD?
If I did use one, it would have to be connected through a PCI card - a
PCI card with a slot for an SSD would be a really neat solution.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Liz Tuddenham wrote:

[snip]

Just an odd thought... Would there be any advantyage in using an SSD?
If I did use one, it would have to be connected through a PCI card - a
PCI card with a slot for an SSD would be a really neat solution.

Normally, I would say yes - it would dramatically improve performance.

But I remember that early Macs needed PATA disks with proprietary Apple firmware, so you might struggle to get anything that would work.

Does your Mac have a FireWire connection? Could it be configured to
boot from it? If so a FireWire to SATA adapter would allow you to put
your system on a SSD.



--
Graham J

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/12/2022 11:02, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Beige G3 OS 8.6

My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA) failed this morning in a strange way.
It got almost to the end of loading the OS then crashed. Even parts of
the desktop had appeared but the frozen mouse pointer had changed to a
multi-coloured rectangle.

I couldn't get access to the 'Startup Disk' control panel, so in the end
I physically disconnected the main HD so the machine was forced to start
on the backup drive (backed up last night!). I set Startup Disk to the
backup drive, then shut down and reconnected the main drive. When I
restarted the machine, it started up on the backup drive but when it
went to load the main HD it froze.

I have tried various combinations of swaping cables and ports, the fault
followed the Main HD. (The startup drive seemed to be determined by the
particular port the drives are plugged into on the IDE card, which I
suppose is logical but is something I hadn't expected.)

If the main HD can load as far as the desktop when it is selected as
startup drive, I wouldn't have thought it could be a hardware fault.
That doesn't explain why it crashes the system at the instant it is
mounted when it isn't the startup disk.

I'm now running on the backup drive and feeling very uncomfortable
because I stand to loose 20+ years of work if this one fails before the
other one can be got working or replaced

Two questions:

1) Is the main drive likely to be salveageable if it won't mount unless
it is selected as the Startup Disk (whereupon it crashes)?

2) If it is not salveageable, are there any makes of HD to prefer or
avoid when buying a replacement?

Thanks to everyone who replied to this. I've now got it sorted (I
hope!) and will describe what worked (just in case anyone else ever gets
in this pickle).

The problem appeared to occur whenever the two drives ran at the same
time; individually thsy worked, as long as the other one was physically disconnected. Regardless of which drive was selected as the Startup
Drive, the crash occurred at the point where the second drive tried to
mount.

I individually started each drive with Extensions off and rebuilt the
Desktop (This may not have been absolutely necessary, but it was a good start.) Reconnected both drives and started with extensions off -- both drives then managed to run at the same time without crashing. Ran a
copy of Disk Warrior on the Backup Drive to operate on the Main Drive.

Each drive has two partitions, 'system' and 'data'. DW found several
files with duplicate names on the 'system' partition but no faults on
the 'data' partition. Possibly these duplicate files had been
faithfully copied by the backup software, resulting in some sort of
filename clash when both the Main and Backup drives were mounted at the
same time.

It appears that, apart from some minor corruption, there is probably
nothing physically wrong with the Main Drive, so I'll continue using it
for now. I have bought a 1TB 'laptop' drive which I can keep an updated 'archive' copy of everything on, so making that copy will be my next
move.

Just an odd thought... Would there be any advantyage in using an SSD?
If I did use one, it would have to be connected through a PCI card - a
PCI card with a slot for an SSD would be a really neat solution.

Thank you for your update, Liz.

I did ask a question here but so far have had no response:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dShLjVptOxA

Is this like your own set-up?

--
Kind regards,
David

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20 Dec 2022 at 12:22:18 GMT, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:

would feel happier with as few links in the chain as possible - hence
the thoughts about a PCI card with an SSD slot and no cables at all. I
see there is a PCI card for a MSSD, but I imagine a full-sized SSD would
need to be mounted elsewhere and wired up.

Perhaps not SSDs are 2.5" and smaller. Although I'll be pretty surprised
if there are PCI cards out there which use PATA (or SCSI) interface to
an SSD which would be required for bootability? Not for less than "major corporation needs these to keep Accounting running" costs anyway.

There are plenty of PCIe cards with slots for NVMe and SATA SSDs, but
that's no use for you. PCI died out long before domestically available
SSDs were a thing, and 'hardcards' with a drive physically mounted on a PCI/NuBus/etc card died off even earlier.

A quick rummage on aliexpress didn't pop any up, which is as good a sign
as any that they're not really practical. The FW400 -> external FW-SATA
caddy seems the best bet, if your Mac would boot from it.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"People can be educated beyond their intelligence"
-- Marilyn vos Savant

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Liz Tuddenham wrote:

[snip]

Just an odd thought... Would there be any advantyage in using an SSD?
If I did use one, it would have to be connected through a PCI card - a
PCI card with a slot for an SSD would be a really neat solution.

Normally, I would say yes - it would dramatically improve performance.

But I remember that early Macs needed PATA disks with proprietary Apple firmware, so you might struggle to get anything that would work.

This one used a mixture of SCSI and PATA originally. (What chance of
finding a SCSI SSD?)

Does your Mac have a FireWire connection?

It doesn't, but PCI cards for Firewire were still available last time I
looked.

...Could it be configured to
boot from it? If so a FireWire to SATA adapter would allow you to put
your system on a SSD.

That would certainly be faster than using the existing USB1 ports, but I
would feel happier with as few links in the chain as possible - hence
the thoughts about a PCI card with an SSD slot and no cables at all. I
see there is a PCI card for a MSSD, but I imagine a full-sized SSD would
need to be mounted elsewhere and wired up.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <tns3mb$locr$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

IIRC DW is also able to run as a bootable USB drive. That might help.

it won't.

a mac running 8.6 cannot boot from usb (and might not even have usb).

disk warrior was previously available on a cd, or it can be copied to
any bootable hard drive.

This is all assuming of course you have a copy of DW, and it's worth
mucking about with here - personally I don't think is, seems to me it's
just better to get a new drive, and dispose of the failed unit.

that's true if everything has been backed up.

if there's something that hasn't been backed up, then it might be worth
trying to recover.

FWIW, DW hasn't been updated in a long time now. They've updated their website info a bit, but only to inform about the lack of support for
APFS drives, and the Mx series machines. The software hasn't been
updated much since APFS came about.

there's nothing to update. the hfs+ version of diskwarrior is very
solid and nothing has changed about hfs to warrant an update.

an apfs version is a complete rewrite, and may not be as important as
it was with hfs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <tns8a8$m8oi$1@dont-email.me>, Graham J
<nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

But I remember that early Macs needed PATA disks with proprietary Apple firmware,

no they didn't

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <1q39c5s.d2b18w1kzfgusN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Just an odd thought... Would there be any advantyage in using an SSD?

yes. it will be faster, although for an older mac, it might not be that
much since the limiting factor is the mac itself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Just an odd thought... Would there be any advantyage in using an SSD?
If I did use one, it would have to be connected through a PCI card - a PCI card with a slot for an SSD would be a really neat solution.

Normally, I would say yes - it would dramatically improve performance.

But I remember that early Macs needed PATA disks with proprietary Apple firmware, so you might struggle to get anything that would work.

This one used a mixture of SCSI and PATA originally.

How are you using a SATA HDD? Via a PATA to SATA adapter?
In which case, chances are good of a SATA SSD working.
Try one and see?

Apparently there's a list of SSDs that work (on MacOS 9 anyway): http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5447.0

(What chance of finding a SCSI SSD?)

There's a way for a Raspberry Pi to emulate a SCSI drive, so if you fitted
an SSD to the Pi... https://www.hackster.io/news/rascsi-zero-turns-a-raspberry-pi-zero-into-an-ultra-compact-external-scsi-drive-emulator-69a71b9e9376
(SCSI is very slow, so it's probably not going to speed things up)

Does your Mac have a FireWire connection?

It doesn't, but PCI cards for Firewire were still available last time I looked.

Would they be bootable, which is a key requirement for a boot drive?

That would certainly be faster than using the existing USB1 ports, but I would feel happier with as few links in the chain as possible - hence
the thoughts about a PCI card with an SSD slot and no cables at all. I
see there is a PCI card for a MSSD, but I imagine a full-sized SSD would
need to be mounted elsewhere and wired up.

Most 2.5" SSDs are a tiny board inside a case full of air. So if your
adapter takes an mSATA SSD you might as well use that, rather than the
hassle of dealing with a 2.5" SSD. OTOH you could just sticky-velcro the
2.5" SSD somewhere - they're not heavy and don't need proper mounting
screws.

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <YUl*7nh6y@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

Apparently there's a list of SSDs that work (on MacOS 9 anyway): http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5447.0

mac os doesn't care. as far as it's concerned, it's just another drive.

i don't know why some people in that thread had problems, other than
it's almost certainly user error.

(What chance of finding a SCSI SSD?)

There's a way for a Raspberry Pi to emulate a SCSI drive, so if you fitted
an SSD to the Pi...

no need for a pi.

all that's needed is a scsi enclosure. the problem is they're older and
likely pata, and pata ssds are difficult to find (and not major brand
names).

It doesn't, but PCI cards for Firewire were still available last time I looked.

Would they be bootable, which is a key requirement for a boot drive?

some were.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/12/2022 09:47, Chris Ridd wrote:

On 19/12/2022 23:45, Bruce Horrocks wrote:

As for choice of manufacturer for replacement HD: as others have said
there's little in it these days. One consideration though: if you can
afford it then maybe go for an SSD rather than an HDD to get a speed
boost?

Liz's Mac has an IDE drive though, now called PATA. To my surprise you
can actually get SSDs with PATA interfaces, though not very many and
they're from unknown Chinese brands like Wun Hung Lo, etc.

She started with the statement "My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA)
failed this morning", however I accept she may well have meant IDE/PATA.

I bought a small SSD a few years back to go into an old pre-SATA PC that
I keep because of the plethora of physical ports and that works fine for
light usage.

I think it came from Crucial.

--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:

On 20/12/2022 09:47, Chris Ridd wrote:

On 19/12/2022 23:45, Bruce Horrocks wrote:

As for choice of manufacturer for replacement HD: as others have said
there's little in it these days. One consideration though: if you can
afford it then maybe go for an SSD rather than an HDD to get a speed
boost?

Liz's Mac has an IDE drive though, now called PATA. To my surprise you
can actually get SSDs with PATA interfaces, though not very many and they're from unknown Chinese brands like Wun Hung Lo, etc.

She started with the statement "My main HD (Toshiba 3.5" 1TB SATA)
failed this morning", however I accept she may well have meant IDE/PATA.

The machine used to run SCSI and IDE/PATA drives, but I fitted a PCI
card that gives me two SATA ports and now my main and backup drives are
both 1TB SATA. They are 3.5" because that size fits onto the old
plastic 'sledges' that retain them in place.

I can connect to a 2.5" SATA drive if necessary - so I might use that as
my archiving system in future.

The old IDE harness is still in place because it is needed to connect
to the CD reader. I could probably find a SCSI cable if I needed to, so
I have a lot of options for connecting different types of drives. (There
is also a floppy disc reader, but I haven't used that for a while.)

I bought a small SSD a few years back to go into an old pre-SATA PC that
I keep because of the plethora of physical ports and that works fine for light usage.

I think it came from Crucial.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20 Dec 2022 at 19:21:50 GMT, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:

The machine used to run SCSI and IDE/PATA drives, but I fitted a PCI
card that gives me two SATA ports and now my main and backup drives are
both 1TB SATA. They are 3.5" because that size fits onto the old
plastic 'sledges' that retain them in place.

Oh, in that case you can just toss in a SATA SSD. They're not seen as
different to a HDD by the machine.

Little bit of shuffling drives as you clone the current main onto it,
then pop it in as main. SSDs are so light you can just hold it on with
one screw, or bluetak or whatever.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Homeopaths suffer from dilutions of grandeur

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

Does your Mac have a FireWire connection?

I've just found something that looks awfully like a PCI card with two
Firewire ports, tucked away on a top shelf. I'll blow the dust off it
and see if I can do anything useful with it.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

On 20 Dec 2022 at 19:21:50 GMT, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:

The machine used to run SCSI and IDE/PATA drives, but I fitted a PCI
card that gives me two SATA ports and now my main and backup drives are both 1TB SATA. They are 3.5" because that size fits onto the old
plastic 'sledges' that retain them in place.

Oh, in that case you can just toss in a SATA SSD. They're not seen as different to a HDD by the machine.

Little bit of shuffling drives as you clone the current main onto it,
then pop it in as main. SSDs are so light you can just hold it on with
one screw, or bluetak or whatever.

That's just what I had in mind.

The present PCI card only has two SATA ports, which makes it difficult
to copy a System from one drive to another. I've solved the problem temporarily by initiallising a removeable 2.5" drive with 3 partitions;
one very small partition has a working OS loaded onto it and can be used
to run the machine while the System and Data are copied onto the other
two partitions.

It would make sense to have at least one more SATA port - which means
buyimg another PCI card. That's why I am looking into the various
options:

a) Buy a 3-port PCI card.

b) Keep the existing 2-port PCI card and buy another with 1 or 2 SATA
ports. If one of the ports is on the back panel, it would allow an
external archive drive to be removed and stored elsewhere.

c) Keep the existing 2-port PCI card and buy another PCI card which
houses a small SSD and has an additional SATA port that can be use for a removeable archive drive by dangling the cables out the back.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)