>From everything I've seen, SMART has zero correlation with real
hardware issues -- confirmed by a discussion with someone at a big
search company. SMART is dumb.
If it's everyone's favorite ``big search company'' in question, they
have an [only moderately depressing] paper:
http://209.85.163.132/papers/disk_failures.pdf
Turns out from their big sample that, nope, SMART isn't good at
predicting failure; nor are temperature or activity levels. Instead
it seems like almost entirely a manufacturing crapshoot.
SMART looks no smarter in CMU's study of the same topic, which nixes
age as a good failure predictor, too:
http://www.usenix.org/event/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder_html/
index.html
--
Josh
