On 08/17/2017 11:10 AM, Alex Chekholko wrote: > The Google paper from a few years ago showed essentially no correlations > between > the things you ask about and failure rates. So... do whatever is most > convenient for you.
Backblaze also has a pretty large data set, granted not as big as google. Backblaze has been MUCH more transparent about what was measured, show some useful correlations, and has been regularly updating the data. They even *gasp* mention brands and models. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-rates-q1-2017/ Their post on reliability of smart data: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-smart-stats-indicate-hard-drive-failures/ A quote: That means that 23.3% of failed drives showed no warning from the SMART stats we record. Are these stats useful? I’ll let you decide if you’d like to have a sign of impending drive failure 76.7% of the time. But before you decide, read on. _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
