Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:35:16 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMART Message-ID: <hdh2ub$n7$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20091112133221.00006b43@unknown> References: <20091112103308.GA2536@hiMolde.no> <20091112115350.GA18542@icarus.home.lan> <hdguqv$isj$1@ger.gmane.org> <288A7D7F-C247-4493-8ED1-E67FFC3E0201@exscape.org> <hdh0l7$ocv$1@ger.gmane.org> <20091112133221.00006b43@unknown>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Cran wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:56:16 +0100 > Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Yes, it's Seagate. Statistically I have the least problems with their >> drives. But I imagine that lack of standardization about these >> statistics very much limits the usability of SMART, right? > > The main problem with SMART appears to be that it's not an accurate > predictor of drive failure, according to a study done at Google - see > http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf I've seen it. But I don't remember if they addressed the problem of nonstandard interpretations of statistics? I do remember they said they buy from multiple drive vendors.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?hdh2ub$n7$1>