From: | Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
Subject: | [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Monitor SATA with smart? | ||
Date: | Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:28:22 | ||
Message-Id: | 3380403.tbqt8HutV6@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info | ||
In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Monitor SATA with smart? by Matthias Fechner |
1 | Matthias Fechner <idefix@×××××××.net> wrote: |
2 | |
3 | > Hello Alexander, |
4 | > |
5 | > * Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name> [18-04-07 12:35]: |
6 | >> Keep in mind though, that SMART doesn't give you reliable information, |
7 | >> though. |
8 | >> |
9 | >> Message-ID: <544vb6F1v7oqgU1@××××××××××××××.net> |
10 | >> http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5038 |
11 | >> http://storagemojo.com/?p=383 |
12 | >> http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder_html/index.html |
13 | >> http://216.239.37.132/papers/disk_failures.pdf |
14 | > |
15 | > thx a lot for your links. It was really nice and informative to read. |
16 | > It's clear that smart is not reliability but it is better then |
17 | > nothing. |
18 | |
19 | It really depends. The Google study (one of the links above) says, |
20 | that SMART very often does not warn you about an impending failure. |
21 | So, even though SMART reports that everything is fine, it may very |
22 | well not be fine at all. Classic case of false negative. |
23 | |
24 | > And smart protected my (backup-upped) data two times and that is |
25 | > really a good rate :) |
26 | |
27 | :) |
28 | |
29 | Alexander Skwar |
30 | |
31 | -- |
32 | gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Subject | Author |
---|---|
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Monitor SATA with smart? | "Hemmann |