Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: help removing a file
Message-ID: <26505@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 12 Sep 90 08:41:01 GMT
References: <1990Sep5.180847.21767@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu> <1217@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 28

>In article <30790003@hpisod2.HP.COM> decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes:
>>First of all, for the future, BUY SOME MORE DISK PACKS SO YOU DON'T
>>HAVE TO REFORMAT YOUR IMPORTANT DATA BEFORE YOU KNOW IT'S BEEN MOVED
>>CORRECTLY.

In article <1217@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes:
>I interpret [this] as "If you are using disk drive with removable media, you
>should always put the old disk pack on the shelf and format a new pack when
>you have problems".  Ever since we got rid of the RP06, none of our Unix
>systems have removable disks.  Keeping a spare 1.2 gigabyte drive on each
>and every host is not feasible.

I rather doubt that Dave Decot is living *that* far in the past :-)

Seriously, a better interpretation is:  `Have spares.  Use them.'
Keeping one spare drive, to be used as a replacement when one fails,
and to be used to store data that are being moved temporarily, is quite
reasonable.  Modern SCSI disks are cheap enough ($3800 for 1.2 GB) and
reliable enough to buy a baker's dozen, use 12, and keep one as the
replacement for whichever fails first.  Instead of paying for
maintenance, reassign the disk maintenance budget into the new-spares
budget.  When one *does* fail, slap in the spare and buy a new spare.

(Determining the appropriate ratio of spares-to-drives-in-use is what
administrative types are supposedly being paid for :-) )
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 405 2750)
Domain:	chris@cs.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris