Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

ext3 metaclustering

Posted Jan 17, 2008 23:56 UTC (Thu) by dberkholz (subscriber, #23346)
In reply to: ext3 metaclustering by magila
Parent article: ext3 metaclustering

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.

(Log in to post comments)

ext3 metaclustering

Posted Jan 18, 2008 4:12 UTC (Fri) by magila (subscriber, #49627) [Link]

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.

ext3 metaclustering

Posted Jan 18, 2008 8:51 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]

piratically... guaranteed...?

ext3 metaclustering

Posted Jan 18, 2008 22:03 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

That's SMArrrT for you.