Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:32:21 +0000 From: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMART Message-ID: <20091112133221.00006b43@unknown> In-Reply-To: <hdh0l7$ocv$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <20091112103308.GA2536@hiMolde.no> <20091112115350.GA18542@icarus.home.lan> <hdguqv$isj$1@ger.gmane.org> <288A7D7F-C247-4493-8ED1-E67FFC3E0201@exscape.org> <hdh0l7$ocv$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:56:16 +0100 Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: > Yes, it's Seagate. Statistically I have the least problems with their > drives. But I imagine that lack of standardization about these > statistics very much limits the usability of SMART, right? > The main problem with SMART appears to be that it's not an accurate predictor of drive failure, according to a study done at Google - see http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf -- Bruce Cran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091112133221.00006b43>