Carlos E. R. wrote:
On large installations such as those you and Kai mention, are SMART tests
useful to predict failure?
When SMART tells that a disk will fail, that's a very good
prediction. We don't collect data how many disks fail without SMART
alerts before. But the recent Google paper on disks has data on that.
In my client's environment (one of the world's largest automotive
R&D sites), all server disks are RAID-1. Exchange disks are on-site
and are replaced daily. SMART alerts are actually not so of interest
for us, disk mirroring and good operating processes are more important.
FWIW, important data is on EMC storage boxes. For SAN products, they
have the highest reliability that we found. And the ability to do
(asynchronous) SRDF mirroring across sites is good for some disaster
recovery use cases as well. (Though not practical for the _real_
important data, there one needs application-level delayed data
replication; but that's another topic.)
Joachim
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Joachim Schrod Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roedermark, Germany
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
