| 1 |
Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin <at> googlemail.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am 13.11.2014 um 01:01 schrieb Adam Carter: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> "Backblaze's analysis of nearly 40,000 drives |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Always suspect a vendor's purpose for fingering others. It |
| 9 |
may be valid, but often tainted. |
| 10 |
Were SSD and other storage devices included? Where operating |
| 11 |
systems were the drives used on? A myriad of parameters |
| 12 |
might be insightful....ymmv. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> SMART 5 - Reallocated_Sector_Count. |
| 16 |
> SMART 187 - Reported_Uncorrectable_Errors. |
| 17 |
> SMART 188 - Command_Timeout. |
| 18 |
> SMART 197 - Current_Pending_Sector_Count. |
| 19 |
> SMART 198 - Offline_Uncorrectable" |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2846009/the-5-smart-stats-that-actually-predict-hard-drive-failure.html |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> everybody with half a brain would figure that one out themselves. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Volker is onto something here. Another consideration is which of these |
| 28 |
(maybe all 5?) can be tracked or have a module developed and included |
| 29 |
into your favorite NMS, like nagios or jffnms. Collect up the data |
| 30 |
trend it yourself and auto_generate graphs and or reports. So what |
| 31 |
is really important is which ones can be included via snmp or whatever |
| 32 |
protocol into your favorite NMS? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Something that relies of something from this vendor, that is not |
| 35 |
opensource, is worthless noise, imho. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
hth, |
| 39 |
James |
Archives