Pbase multiple disc crashes!

Missing Images There is currently a problem with our main storage system, which is causing images not to show up. We are working with the guys at NetApp to resolve this as soon as possible. This will take some hours to resolve because of multiple disk failures. We appreciate your patience. -- 'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

... having a slipped disc! As I mentioned in another reply, they should know better than to get their discs from eBay! :-> -- Zone8 The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS

...especially if they have to restore from backups - I can image how long it will take to restore a billion images. It takes my little computer 3 hours to back up!

Eric Sorensen wrote: ...especially if they have to restore from backups - I can image how long it will take to restore a billion images. It takes my little computer 3 hours to back up!
if they lost 8TB of data, that's not a few hours fix my 'lowly server' is only 3TB and it takes a full 8 hours of clock time to fsck itself or online-capacity expand itself. otoh, 8TB isn't a huge amount for a true hosting site...

This sucks big time. It's been 2 days and I still can't see the images I uploaded. The server should run redundant simultaneously so if one crashes you still got the 2nd or 3rd copy running live. For the price and storage you got I am starting to feel Pbase is weak after all. -- View: original size

pbase has always has some problem or another that is why I went to fotki.com years ago...never a problem and unlimited storage ...a lot cheaper also. boris -- Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity. Michel de Montaigne http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

The disk failure is one thing but for months now comments to individual images has been sparodically missing. Then if you scroll your mouse over where the comment SHOULD be it sometimes becomes visible. REALLY annoying when family members want to see images as some are older and don't get "where the comments have gone". I regret paying for this year, the site is just a mess right now.
Jonathan Demarais wrote: Missing Images There is currently a problem with our main storage system, which is causing images not to show up. We are working with the guys at NetApp to resolve this as soon as possible. This will take some hours to resolve because of multiple disk failures. We appreciate your patience. -- 'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Alfisti wrote: The disk failure is one thing but for months now comments to individual images has been sparodically missing. Then if you scroll your mouse over where the comment SHOULD be it sometimes becomes visible. REALLY annoying when family members want to see images as some are older and don't get "where the comments have gone".
No problems with comments here.

http://www.pbase.com/alfisti/image/76742065 Check that out, almost nothing shows up under the image. It's just example.

Alfisti wrote: The disk failure is one thing but for months now comments to individual images has been sparodically missing. Then if you scroll your mouse over where the comment SHOULD be it sometimes becomes visible. REALLY annoying when family members want to see images as some are older and don't get "where the comments have gone". I regret paying for this year, the site is just a mess right now.
Jonathan Demarais wrote: Missing Images There is currently a problem with our main storage system, which is causing images not to show up. We are working with the guys at NetApp to resolve this as soon as possible. This will take some hours to resolve because of multiple disk failures. We appreciate your patience. -- 'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'
It is a bummer, I posted you a nice yellow squirrel and now you can't even see it! Pbase is generally pretty good IMO, and there is not a single other site out there that couldn't have a similar problem, so I'm upset, but not unreasonable. 'This is more serious than I thought.....but it is still fun! http://www.pbase.com/rupertdog Take a look- It's Free!

Rupert60 wrote: It is a bummer, I posted you a nice yellow squirrel and now you can't even see it!
oh, THAT's what did it! did you know - 'yellow squirrel', when converted to ascii, then interpreted as machine binary execution code means "execute self test, destructively". I guess you had no way to know that. just don't do it again, m'kay?

Pbase is happy once again so you whiners can find something else to worry on. -- Keep your lens clean and your mind open. http://www.pbase.com/peterb/

I have gradually added my pictures to SmugMug and when my account runs out at pbase, I'm gone. SmugMug has larger sizes and the rendered smaller pictures are sharper. I hated to have people look at anything but the original picture on pbase because the picture quality was poor. You can compare below. -- See my galleries at http://dennismullen.smugmug.com and http://www.pbase.com/dennismullen “Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin.

Sorry but this (below) leaves me unable to consider smugmug. "Unless we indicate otherwise, if you upload Content, including any Media, to the SmugMug site, you grant SmugMug a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish, distribute and display the Content as we deem appropriate in providing the Services authorized or requested by you, including the right to use the name that is submitted in connection with such Content. You further understand and agree that, in order to help ensure smooth operation of our system, we may keep backup copies of Content indefinitely."

Did you ever look at the fine print on your credit card account? -- See my galleries at http://dennismullen.smugmug.com and http://www.pbase.com/dennismullen “Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin.

SmugMug does not claim ownership in the photographs, videos or other media created or uploaded by Subscribers ("Media"). SmugMug will not resell Media to third parties.

I won't grant royalty free use of my images to a photohosting site whether they sell them or not. Yes, I do read the fine print on my credit cards...you don't? Good luck to you.

You are missing the point of their statement... ...as we deem appropriate in providing the Services authorized or requested by you.

If the text you quoted is a deal breaker, all it means is that you've never read the terms on any other sites or understand what they really mean. If you can't agree to the text you quoted: 1. You do not give legal permission to any online service to store and reproduce your images to create backups, thumbnails, and multiple preview sizes on any servers they use or outsource to around the world. 2. You do not give legal permission to any online service to build a web gallery using your images. 3. Logically, based on 1 and 2, you prevent yourself from using any online service. The Smugmug license is non-exclusive and never claims ownership. Just like the terms at all the other sites where you are probably storing images right now. There are unfairly restrictive licenses you should avoid; the ones that claim full ownership, copyright, exclusivity, or moral rights. Run away fast from those. This is not one of those.
PBasepeterb wrote: Sorry but this (below) leaves me unable to consider smugmug. "Unless we indicate otherwise, if you upload Content, including any Media, to the SmugMug site, you grant SmugMug a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish, distribute and display the Content as we deem appropriate in providing the Services authorized or requested by you, including the right to use the name that is submitted in connection with such Content. You further understand and agree that, in order to help ensure smooth operation of our system, we may keep backup copies of Content indefinitely."

I've moved from pbase to my own server. I had issues with the way it's run. -- Lou Dallara http://www.louisdallara.com

And has been for several hours. Everything I had loaded at pbase is still there. And, dennismullen, I really dont think your Smugmug photos are any better than your Pbase photos, sorry! In about 8 years, this is the only 'problem' I've had with Pbase. I can't see that Smugmug, Fotki or anywhere else can guarantee that they will never have a disk crash so I'll pay my money and take my choice.

I have my pictures with fotki.com for six years.....never lost a photo and I have 17000+...in 6 years had a 4 hour span of erratic behavior. Boris -- Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity. Michel de Montaigne http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

Today is Fotki's turn - its been down all morning -- Wayne's World of Graphics & Barbershop http://public.fotki.com/waynelr6/ http://waynelr.smugmug.com/

Although this was probably a blow... ...I suspect it was repaired some years ago! -- 2010 : My new year's resolution - to be a year of poetry!

aardvark7 wrote: Although this was probably a blow... ...I suspect it was repaired some years ago!
The problem with pbase was fixed The bugs appear to be nixed What bothered our Wayne Was the same old refrain Of a song in a different key That is being sung on foroki And yes, I know of my crime To make key and fotoki rhyme Seems the year of poetry Is you, but really not me

Why didn't you just start a new thread about fotki and leave PBase out of it? It really does substantial disservice to PBase. Rick
waynelr wrote: Today is Fotki's turn - its been down all morning -- Wayne's World of Graphics & Barbershop http://public.fotki.com/waynelr6/ http://waynelr.smugmug.com/

What the hell is a 'multiple disk crash' may I ask? Is this a 1978 data center or something......??? Oh wait...I read the details in the link above: "On Saturday, we lost 3 disks simultaneously in our main storage system which runs on NetApp hardware. This caused an 8 Terabyte volume to have some inconsistencies which have to be analyed and repaired before we can put the volume back online. Fortunately, the cause of the problem is something NetApp understands and they've provided updated firmware for the disk shelves to correct the bug responsible." No, you didn't lose three disks at one time, and this is not a random act of god thing. You lost RAID 5 parity due to god knows what controller fault. Unfortunatley, we still have dill-holes out there who insist on using RAID 5 because the CIO of some data services company prefers to hire idiots with no experience. The funny thing is....you're still likely running other volumes in the same config with the same fault potential, and they haven't fixed that either! HaHaHa.

Scott - I know you're a little rabid on RAID 5, but they're using NetApp hardware which is FAS. It's not a simple RAID 5.

Netapp uses RAID 4, which I understand and have used in the past, and something called 'double parity'. In any respect, it's parity, and a source of a potential data loss. I suspect their mirroring technology is similiar the Falconstore, which I've also used. The reason this kind of RAID configuration is choosen for SANs is somewhere down the line you can shave a few disks off the array and hence reduce the price so you can compete with your competitors. Drives and controller cards are what drive up the price of the unit. The fact remains that a significant amount of data was lost, so why are we bragging about this product? If the NetApp appliance was not as fault, then why aren't the drives in question pulled because they are suspect defective? My bet is the drives were simply re-configured and re-mounted, which proves the fault was not due to any defect on the part of the drives themselves.

Scott Eaton wrote: The fact remains that a significant amount of data was lost, so why are we bragging about this product? If the NetApp appliance was not as fault, then why aren't the drives in question pulled because they are suspect defective? My bet is the drives were simply re-configured and re-mounted, which proves the fault was not due to any defect on the part of the drives themselves.
How much (if any) data was lost is certainly open to question. I haven't lost any data and I haven't noticed anyone else complaining about lost data. Every RAID level has it's place. Those who view parity RAID as a back-up alternative are the ones that get themselves into trouble. Fortunately, there aren't a whole lot of peole around who think that way. Well, not for very long at least. If Slug chooses to run RAID 4 for his online pages, that's perfectly fine with me. I trust he knows what he's doing.

Scott Eaton wrote: What the hell is a 'multiple disk crash' may I ask? Is this a 1978 data center or something......???
netapp (the company) is an industry leader. they kind of know what they are doing. I would not blame this on design, just knowing what a big player netapp is, in the field. I don't have more details, but I would not just blanket-blame this on raid5. I know you hate it with a passion, but when maintained in a true datacenter, it DOES work. and again, netapp is not some mickymouse vista application running on commodity hardware...

I know you hate it with a passion, but when maintained in a true datacenter,
....And kept at 70F with a lot of prayer and worship. No offense LinuxWorks, and I respect your opinion, but it's fair to say I've been in more Enterprise Data centers than you have, and at least once a year I encounter some Troglydyte pushing a solution based on a RAID parity (or hybrid) backend, and once a year I see a few terrabytes lost. I then hear excuses like this because the next economic cycle tends to push in admins and SANs pushers while the prior ones get moved out of IT because of attrition.
they kind of know what they are doing.
Their product just lost a few terrabytes of data, but they build a great product? I can trust a couple terrabytes on generic RAID 1 cards that cost $20 each, but you can't trust it on an enterprise SANS that can cost in excess of 50 grand. Yeah...good one. EMC isn't exactly a small fry either, and I've lost count at the number of RAID volumes I've seen torched by those systems. I'm not that familiar with NetApp, but I don't really care about the name put on the front of the SAN case because most of the time the hardware, fiberchannel and controllers are made by the same people. I'd be willing to bet I can buy the same chassis with a different name on the front panel from somebody else. The only difference here is that web-hosted data tends to be ubiquitous in nature, and there's limited accountability. I work almost entirely in enterprise/corporate, and when data is lost - somebody gets fired, and they can't blame the vendor or VAR. Well over 50% of the catastrophic data losses I've encountered the past 5 years have been due to parity RAID corruption due to controller error. Moving to a SANs only centralizes the problem, but the hardware and controllers are essentially the same.

... all of my images and thumbs are back, but it was a mess for a few days. http://www.pbase.com/thealaskan

Can someone explain what Raid 5-6 is and how many backups of my photos do these hosting service keep. Do they copy to separate HD? Thank's Boris -- Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity. Michel de Montaigne http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

Now all you people who reckoned that Pbase sucked and all you people who don't like RAID5 and all you people who were going to abandon Pbase a.s.a.p. Where are you now? Does DPReview suck? Have you criticised Mr. Askey over the RAID5 setup here. And I notice that every single one of you still post - recently - on DPReview's forums. Come on lads and lasses, dish it to this site as well, or have you all been to the Pbase forum to complain about DPReview? One other thing, I lost absolutely nothing when Pbase crashed; here I lost 5 days worth of messaging.

What a pain. -- http://www.pbase.com/rudiknust 'I am always ready to shoot - pictures.'

Looks fine to me, the link you posted has no missing thumbs, my Pbase is OK, check another 5-6 and they seem OK. Possibly your browser? Mark -- http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Add new comment

Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: txt.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.