On 23/06/20 19:32, Sid Spry wrote:
> The danger of SMART is that rate of false negatives is so high (IME) that
> you might erroneously think a drive is not going to fail and putting off a
> backup. A good backup policy should mitigate this, but you still might plan
> around drive lifetime SMART
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:37 PM Dale wrote:
>
> I'm sure there is many false positives out there but ignoring the real
> positives isn't a good solution either. By all means, if one wants to just
> wing it and hope for the best, disable SMART and take the risk. At some
> point, a drive will
Sid Spry wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 12:26 PM, Dale wrote:
>> SMART can't predict the future so it can only monitor for the things
>> it can see. If say a spindle bearing is about to lock up suddenly,
>> SMART most likely can't detect that since it is a hardware failure that
>> can't
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 12:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:14 PM Sid Spry wrote:
> >
> > So if I'm understanding properly most drive firmware won't let you
> > operate the device in an append-only mode?
>
> So, there are several types of SMR drives.
>
> There are
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 12:26 PM, Dale wrote:
> SMART can't predict the future so it can only monitor for the things
> it can see. If say a spindle bearing is about to lock up suddenly,
> SMART most likely can't detect that since it is a hardware failure that
> can't really be predicted.
Sid Spry wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> Which is better than not knowing until the drive is failed and
>> offline. :)
>>
> But redundant if the drive degration is obvious. In two cases I
> can think of drives only reported SMART will-fail after the drives
> had
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:14 PM Sid Spry wrote:
>
> So if I'm understanding properly most drive firmware won't let you
> operate the device in an append-only mode?
So, there are several types of SMR drives.
There are host-managed, drive-managed, and then hybrid devices that
default to
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> Which is better than not knowing until the drive is failed and
> offline. :)
>
But redundant if the drive degration is obvious. In two cases I
can think of drives only reported SMART will-fail after the drives
had hard failed. In the
On 2020-06-23, Sid Spry wrote:
> Thanks for these. I do have a general question: has SMART actually shown
> anyone predictive capability?
Sort of. It noticed the initial failures and e-mailed me a warning
long before I would have otherwised noticed. I lost a couple files,
but without SMART I
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, at 7:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 7:36 AM Michael wrote:
> >
> > Just to add my 2c's before you throw that SMR away, the use case for these
> > drives is to act as disk archives, rather than regular backups. You write
> > data you want to keep, once.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, at 2:17 AM, Dale wrote:
> David Haller wrote:
>
> I mentioned once long ago that I keep a list of frequently used
> commands. I do that because, well, my memory at times isn't that great.
> Here is some commands I ran up on based on posts here and what google
> turned up
On 22/06/2020 21:42, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:40:49 +0100, antlists wrote:
Warning 2: I did exactly that, and it LOOKED like it was working
happily, until it overflowed some internal limit and my 1G card
turned into a 128M card or whatever it was. Have you actually TESTED
12 matches
Mail list logo
