On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 11:52 +0800, W.Kenworthy wrote: > So something like SMART is the only way for the average Joe to get the > health of a drive. > > Google has lots on this sort of thing
That sentence is correct in more than one way! "Google the generic term for any web page found via searching on Google" no doubt has lots on this sort of thing, but so does "Google the company". I remember reading a SlasDot post about the results of their disk monitoring over the last x years, and they use and monitor a lot of disks. *looking* Here's the full study: http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.html >From the abstract: "...we conclude that models based on SMART parameters alone are unlikely to be useful for predicting individual drive failures. Surprisingly, we found that temperature and activity levels were much less correlated with drive failures than previously reported." I recall there were some summaries of this article, but I can't find them right now. An interesting read. Basically, you might not be able to get reliable warnings of impending failures. Keep Good Backups (so say we all) -- Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au> The naked truth of it is, I have no shirt. -- William Shakespeare, "Love's Labour's Lost"
