> I find smart isn't very useful. I've had systems giving hard drive failure > predictions for years and never have a problem. And drives that fail > without warning. And of course, some drives that predict failure before > they fail (like it's supposed to do.) Unfortunately, since the probability > of each of these three possibilities has been (in my experience) > approximately equal... it means I'm getting no value from it.
If smartd doesn't do a good enough job, is there a better alternative for automated monitoring of disk health on a Linux server or desktop? -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix OLD GnuPG KeyID: D5C7B5D9 / Email: [email protected] OLD GnuPG FP: 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 2011 PGP KeyID: 32A492D8 / Email: [email protected] 2011 PGP FP: 7834 AEC2 EFA3 565C A4B6 9BA4 0ACB AD85 32A4 92D8 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
