Matthias Fechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Alexander, > > * Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [18-04-07 12:35]: >> Keep in mind though, that SMART doesn't give you reliable information, >> though. >> >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5038 >> http://storagemojo.com/?p=383 >> http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder_html/index.html >> http://216.239.37.132/papers/disk_failures.pdf > > thx a lot for your links. It was really nice and informative to read. > It's clear that smart is not reliability but it is better then > nothing.
It really depends. The Google study (one of the links above) says, that SMART very often does not warn you about an impending failure. So, even though SMART reports that everything is fine, it may very well not be fine at all. Classic case of false negative. > And smart protected my (backup-upped) data two times and that is > really a good rate :) :) Alexander Skwar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
