On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Peter Glassenbury <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/06/2012 6:07 p.m., Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 1 June 2012 17:26, Timothy Musson<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Via Ubuntu's "Disk Utility", I've tried the "SMART" self tests on the >>> dodgy drive. It found nothing wrong and calls the drive "healthy". >> >> Now you mention it, I've never seen a SMART report say anything other >> than healthy on certainly moribund drives. > > Interesting... We have been running Fedora 14 last year and 16 this year and > have had the disk utility be too "SMART". It lets me know the warnings and > when it gets too high, starts popping up disk failing errors.. but they are > warnings and not bad enough for the warantee to kick in and get a > replacement drive.
Google released a big report on HDD failure rates and SMART a couple of years back, released to USENIX IIRC ... Oh yes, on the wikipedia article for SMART, as it happens ... """ Work at Google on over 100,000 drives found correlations between certain S.M.A.R.T. information and actual failure rates. In the 60 days following the first scan error on a drive, the drive was, on average, 39 times more likely to fail than it would have been had if no such error occurred. First errors in reallocations, offline reallocations and probational counts were also strongly correlated to higher probabilities of failure. Conversely, little correlation was found for increased temperature and no correlation for usage level. However, a large proportion of the failed drives failed without giving any S.M.A.R.T. warnings at all, meaning that S.M.A.R.T. data alone was of limited usefulness in anticipating failures.[2] [2]http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf """ So, if SMART complains, the disk is on its way out. If SMART doesn't complain, it still might just stop one day. -jim _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canterbury.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
