>Backblaze software is pretty reasonable. Also, for restoring files, it's surprisingly fast despite a reputation held by many that it's slow. The SO interface is shitty and often freezes, and lacks many basic features like being able to see file sizes or scrolling through long file lists easily, but at least overall, I can quickly and easily see when backups are happening, how they're being done and what's being saved. Oddly, SpiderOak has been a background go-to for years and always worked smoothly for backing up everything I select in a wholesale way, keeping a fairly clear record of what was saved, removed or moved, and adjusting immediately to any file changes or deletes I do. Overall, just too many ambiguities for it to be reliable. ![]() The interface keeps glitching up, for a while it failed repeatedly until I gave it a unique permission in Windows services, and the backup process is far from intuitive, with multiple backups showing up as restore options, but each with different file sizes and specific files saved. ![]() My experience with Arq has been terrible so far. The debate seems to be mostly around whether zeroing a drive really does zero every bit and that’s not straightforward to prove (many drive erasure programs will offer a printable “certificate” once a drive has been “secure-wiped”, which often mentions a “million dollar guarantee” or whatever… it’s a sham because how do you prove the program failed to erase the data on the drive? Especially days, weeks, or years later?). There’s a lot of debate about that statement, but ultimately, if the drive is in fact zeroed twice, it’s physically impossible to recover the data. If you write all 1s and then all 0s (or vice-versa) to the drive, on the other hand… there’s no way to recover the data. Still, they don’t risk it and want the drives shredded.Įventually, AES-256 can probably be bruteforced in a reasonable amount of time. Of course if these companies were really smart, they’d have wiped the drives before going to the recycling company. But I guess nobody wants to be that guy who compromises company data or whatever just so the local recycling company can make money off their old drives in addition to their old servers, UPSes, racks, et al. Now obviously the recycling company could try to discourage this in lieu of a 3 (or 7 or 100 or whatever) zero of the drives and then resell them as they do everything else they get “donated” to them… many are really expensive, high-capacity SAS drives that are only a few years old. The local electronics recycling company where I live (US-FL) shreds hard drives by default and many of their enterprise clients apparently ask for it when they “donate” their old PowerEdge servers, NASes and whatnot. I would put the drive on my shelve and maybe reuse it as temporary buffer storage because why would someone buy such a used drive for a high price? In my eyes, it's still okay. One would say, I should replace the drive immediately but I trust in ZFS and my backups. I'm not happy with that but I'm also glad, I could confirm that's not an issue caused by my setup. ![]() But it seems that WD Reds don't want to replace sectors because the data is still readable. ![]() That's how I forcefully fix pending sectors on desktop drives. I was able to "fix" the issue by running testdisk in read-write mode forcing the disk to overwrite the bad sector. I've messed a lot with the drives bought 3 other used drives and it turned out that one of them had the same failure just undetected. I had 4 WD Red 4 TB HDDs like WDC WD40EFRX and 2 out of them already failed SMART long tests and hat uncorrectable errors reported by the kernel after about 25000 hrs powered on.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |