On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaz...@bmrb.wisc.edu>
wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2016 01:23 PM, compdoc wrote:
> >>> You don't have to guess about failing hard drives. You only have to
> >>> read the SMART info from each of your drives. That will tell you.
> >>
> >> That is not entirely true. "Desktop" drives will spend a lot of time
> > trying to relocate data from failing sectors before they consider
themselves
> > failing.
> >
> >
> > It is completely true.
>
> BS. I've thrown out dozens of dead drives whose SMART report and
> self-tests were "healthy as an ox". I repeat, if you have a low-end
> "desktop" drive, "only reading SMART info" is not enough: they come with
> a well-known failure mode that produces false negative on the SMART test.
For anybody interested, Google studied failure trends in large disk
populations
<http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//archive/disk_failures.pdf>
and one of their conclusions was:
...we find that failure prediction models based on SMART parameters alone
are likely to be severely limited in their prediction accuracy, given that *a
large fraction of our failed drives have shown no SMART error signals
whatsoever*.
In other words. SMART says there's a problem, it's very likely to fail
catastrophically within a short time period. SMART says there's no
problem, doesn't mean a thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785111&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
