> > James Harper <[email protected]> > writes: > > > It's frustrating because a simple "if hard read errors > 0 || failed > > self tests > 0 then drive = not okay" would have meant I could just > > read the SMART health indicator and eject the drive from the array (or > > whatever it belonged to). > > IIRC from heterogeneous disks in an array I had once, I was getting 10* > the number of errors on one pair of disks from the other pair. It > turned out that seagate was reporting uncorrectable errors and WD was > reporting all errors -- the seagate had an extra field where it reported > the raw error rate. > > If you are gonna script a "not okay" heuristic, be careful not to > overgeneralize from one vendor to the next. >
That's why I want the vendors to make the leap that "unrecoverable read error = unhealthy disk". The reported counters are not reliable, as you say. James _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
