Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:56:16 +0100
Ivan Voras <ivo...@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.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
