On November 9, 2007 10:24:20 am Eberhard Roloff wrote: > > While this study is great, one should not forget that the google usage > environment of hundreds of thousands disks is not directly comparable to > what most people do at work or at home. > > I.e. most people do not work in air-conditioned data centers and most > desktops do not run 24x7.
It is for me. Two of my three desktops at home run 24-7, while the other two do not. And air conditioning, while not universal, is quite normal for many people. > So while the google paper is certainly informative and a rare beast in > regard to the observation of a very large population of commodity > harddisks, I would not dare to use any of it's conclusions lightly for > my home usage pattern. How so? It's conclusion was basically that you couldn't predict when drive failure was going to occur with SMART. Since that's the case, doesn't it behoove us to have some kind of backup plan, when failure is unpredictable except for very broad parameters? And not to panic when SMART says your drive is failing because it may not be? Bob -- Bob Smits Ph 250-245-2553 Fax 250-245-5531 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
