| 1 |
Sid Spry wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Which is better than not knowing until the drive is failed and |
| 4 |
>> offline. :) |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
> But redundant if the drive degration is obvious. In two cases I |
| 7 |
> can think of drives only reported SMART will-fail after the drives |
| 8 |
> had hard failed. In the other cases performance was so degraded |
| 9 |
> it was obvious it was the drive. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I've had two hard drive failures that SMART warned me about. If not for |
| 15 |
SMART I wouldn't have noticed the drives having issues until much |
| 16 |
later. Maybe even after losing a lot of data. In both of those cases, |
| 17 |
I lost no data at all. I was able to recover everything off the drive. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
SMART can't predict the future so it can only monitor for the things it |
| 20 |
can see. If say a spindle bearing is about to lock up suddenly, SMART |
| 21 |
most likely can't detect that since it is a hardware failure that can't |
| 22 |
really be predicted. We may be able to hear a strange sound if we lucky |
| 23 |
but if it happens suddenly, it may not even do that. While SMART can't |
| 24 |
predict all points of failures, it can detect a lot of them. Even if |
| 25 |
the two drives I had failed with no warning from SMART, I'd still run it |
| 26 |
and monitor it. Using SMART can warn you in certain situations. If a |
| 27 |
person doesn't run SMART, they will miss those warnings. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
SMART isn't perfect but it is better than not having it all. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Dale |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
:-) :-) |
Archives