Actually, there's another paper, G. F. Hughes, J. F. Murray, K. Kreutz-Delgardo and C. Elkan, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, September 2002, "Improved Disk Drive Failure Warnings". http://dsp.ucsd.edu/~jfmurray/publications/Hughes2002.pdf
It looks at an improved version of the current SMART threshold scheme, and shows that even the improved scheme yields unimpressive results. They were able to predict about 30% (i.e. 40% for one kind of drive and 10% for another) of failures, in exchange for a number of false alarms that is about 20% of the real failure rate. That's not a spectacular result. It means that about 1/3 of people are saved from a failure, but 1/5 of people unnecessarily throw out a disk. Perhaps that's a good trade-off, but it's the result of a careful statistical analysis. If this software does a half-baked job of it, it could easily do far worse, enough worse to be actually harmful. -- gnome-disk-utility nags me too much that my disk is failing https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/412152 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
