Colin McCabe wrote:
On 5/18/07, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Burgess schrieb:
>> Basically, B appears to be "write-only"; it will never return an
error on a
>> write, but just try to read from it, and you will be sorry.
>
> It would be interesting to see what SMART says about drive B,
especially
> the short and long self tests.
I wouldn't rely on SMART.
I have a broken drive, which has lots of badblocks - but SMART happily
claims it's fine (short/long tests are completed without errors).
If you haven't seen Google's hard drive study yet, you should take a
look.
It's at http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
The conclusion says that "some of the SMART parameters are
well-correlated with higher failure probabilities," but also that "a
large fraction of [google's] failed drives have shown no SMART error
signals whatsoever."
Having covered that in a presentation to a user group related to SMART.
may I offer a paraphrase which may be more obvious to people who are not
native speakers of English:
High counts of some SMART parameters indicate that the drive is likely
to fail. However, most drives fail without warning.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
