>unplug external HDD without ejecting it Who /devilish/ here?

Enjoy possible corruption

>>62049042
>Use CoW filesystem
>Hard shutdown everytime

>>62049042
Well, there are two types of people:
Those who do not do that and those who soon will learn not to

>not only unplugging it if a write is in progress

>>62050461
>not unplugging it while the drive is being repartitioned

>>62049042
>Cashier tells me to have a good day
>I don't

>>62050562
D E V I L I S H

>>62050562
S A T A N I C
A
T
A
N
I
C

>>62050562
Blue board

File: 1492301274002.gif (2MB, 695x392px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 695x392px

>>62050562

>ask for take away
>eat in the McDonald

>>62050562
K E K
E
K

>>62050562
D A R K | L O R D

It's only dangerous if you went into Device Manager and selected the "Better Performance" removal policy for the external drive.

It explicitly says on that properties tab that under the default setting, ejecting the drive is not required.

>unplug external HDD without ejecting it

Only an issue on Linux, Windows forces async which means slower performance but pull/power safe. Mac users don't have external drives because no ports.

File: 353606-fs8.png (11KB, 473x500px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 473x500px

>Stallman tells me to stop using proprietary software
>I don't.

- Posted from Microsoft Edge on Windows 10 Pro

>>62050993
normie

>>62050993
>>62050623
Shit attempt to equal
>>62050562

>>62050993
>freedom fighter tells me to uncuck myself from my Illuminati captors
>I don't

Stupid, foolish, worthless, smelly frogposter.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1502710938855.png (52KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 200x200px

>Go to hardware store
>Pick up combination bike lock
>Unlock with default 0000 passcode
>Change passcode to 1024
>Lock it and return it to the shelf

>>62051091
>the bike lock gets stolen by an antifa nigger

>>62051029
I've seen >>62050562 posted on reddit before.

File: 1447857847146.gif (2MB, 425x481px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 425x481px

>>62051029
>anon thinks something is shit
>I disagree

>>62050968
>Windows
it can be configured for you to have to safe eject it
gnome-disks has poweroff, i suppose this should turn then disk off before you eject it

File: m.jpg (152KB, 825x464px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 825x464px

>open intel vs AMD thread on /g/
>I dont't even own a computer

>>62050562
>>62050574
>>62050576
>>62050593
>>62050602
>>62050925
>>62050946
Summer

File: 0041 - g0SJsTM.jpg (94KB, 422x408px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 422x408px

>>62051221
>start an intel/nvidia vs amd bait thread
>use proxy to argue with myself
>eventually turns into a flamewar between shills and fanboys

File: g9lufc8nxcwy.jpg (237KB, 1015x1026px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1015x1026px

>using public computer
>remove ball from mouse and take it home with me

>>62050957
>>62050968
Even with quick removal, it's still up to individual developers to write their applications in such a way as to not leave their files in an inconsistent state. So yes, it can still be dangerous to yank the drive even with quick removal. The only thing NTFS guarantees is that it won't leave itself in an inconsistent state.

Safe removal makes sure that no process is using the disk, then takes it offline. If there's any process accessing the disk, safe removal fails. Even an expanded tree view in a forgotten Explorer window will prevent safe removal. I'm fairly certain this is also why there's no context menu option to offline a disk, or lock a disk encrypted with BitLocker.

File: 1444036234256.png (225KB, 534x507px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 534x507px

>>62051309
>using pc at a library
>disassemble it
>clean off the thermal paste
>reassemble it

>>62051309
Ball? Mouse? What does this mean?

>>62050562
Wtf

>>62051372
In the "safe" mode, does it not cache writes?

I thought that was the main reason to safely elect.
I've had colleagues give me corrupted USB sticks because they didn't safely elect when it was still writing.

File: bc46d863751459e38cdcecd8ef4d14e328f5be7ea8f9ce4aa8806049dd793881.png (49KB, 574x246px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 574x246px

>>62050562
Enjoy swat

File: 26ufdipQqU2lhNA4g.gif (494KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 200x200px

>>62050562

>violently shitpost as a rabid freetard to derail threads
>in reality using google chrome and windows 10

>>62051583
Quick removal turns off write caching, but it's still quite possible to yank the drive in the middle of a write operation (just unlikely). What really matters is whatever it was that didn't get to finish writing. On FAT volumes (most USB sticks), an interruption while operating on the filesystem can be disastrous. NTFS doesn't have this problem, because of its journal. However, neither filesystem makes any guarantees about writing to files.

In most cases this is not really an issue because most applications don't update files in place. They simply create a new file and then tell the filesystem to replace the old with the new. However, imagine you have an application working on a huge database on your external drive. Making a new copy of the entire database isn't really an option. So the database application has to implement its own transactions if it hopes to survive power loss and yanked cords (these are the so-called ACID properties of databases).

>watch porn
>not on private browser

>>62050562
wow omg so epic haha can't wait to post this on 9gag!!

>>62054470
why my newfriend, this is 9gag