[kwlug-disc] The sweet(?) smell of power supplies

[unsolicited]

It wouldn't, except ...

Seems to me some long time ago I was reading about pros/cons of NFS. 
Including more robust at reconnection, but could be slow about doing so. 
Could also have been a comparison / commentary against Samba, at the 
time, too. Heartbeat? Disk hit in worst possible place?

But a disk is a disk, and a filesystem is a filesystem. If there are 
problems, probably other issues in play, such as timeouts. Client / 
server versions / happiness / glitch-free connectivity. (Network 
saturation? Appears as an NFS issue but delving underneath may be 
revealing to non-NFS issues, like timeout?)

I wonder if some connectivity / file systems beat upon hard drives 
harder than others?

And ... hard drives have become problematic. IDE days, most seemed to 
just work forever. Hasn't seemed to be the case for some years though. 
I've wondered if since buying an SSD is building in requirement to 
replace (in 4'ish years?), some of today's hard drives, and lack of 
quality thereof, is all that different.


On 14-04-07 04:17 PM, Andrew Kohlsmith (mailing lists account) wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:23 PM, chaslinux at gmail.com wrote:
>> The one thing I've wondered is if using NFS might have contributed
>> to the hard drive's smart errors (after about 1 year of use)... I
>> doubt it, but since I haven't done any NFS since... The drive was a
>> 1TB Seagate. Current 2TB has been great for several years (bought
>> it when hd prices were crazy low - $69).
>
> Why would disk access through NFS stress a drive any more than local
> disk access, or access through something like Samba or another
> networking standard?