Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
Google published a paper fairly recently on a large study of disk failures. As I recall, they
found that SMART logs were not reliable indicators.
Posted Jan 18, 2008 4:12 UTC (Fri) by magila (subscriber, #49627)
Notice I said gradually degrading. SMART won't help in the event of a catastrophic mechanical
failure, which is what most of the unanticipated failures in the Google study probably were.
Fsck doesn't help in that case either though. It's only the kinds of failures that cause a
slow accumulation of bad sectors that fsck would matter for, and those are the kinds of
failures that SMART is piratically guaranteed to catch.
Posted Jan 18, 2008 8:51 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338)
Posted Jan 18, 2008 22:03 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
That's SMArrrT for you.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds