On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:55:21 +0000
James Broadhead <jamesbroadh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 February 2012 21:29, Grant <emailgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > I'm amazed but disconnecting and reconnecting the IDE and power
> > cable fixed it. Which is your favorite tool for testing a HD's
> > integrity with and without S.M.A.R.T. support?
>
> [I] gnome-extra/gsmartcontrol [1]
> Available versions: (~)0.8.6 {debug}
> Installed versions: 0.8.6(16:47:27 13/02/12)(-debug)
> Homepage: http://gsmartcontrol.berlios.de/
> Description: Graphical user interface for smartctl
>
> [1] "sunrise" /var/lib/layman/sunrise
>
> Is a great (and sorely needed) frontend for smartmontools - it even
> colours lines in red when they indicate imminent failure!
>
> Make sure that you have read the Google paper before trusting SMART
> too far though -- they found (among other things) that it only
> accurately predicts failure in 50% of cases.
>
That's a fair trade in my book, seeing as without it I could
manage to accurately predict failure in 0% of cases.
Now to get the managers to understand that it's 50%, not 100% and stop
the endless whinging when SAN drives fail without prior SMART alerts
While on the topic, has anyone heard of research into false positives
wrt S.M.A.R.T?
--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
