Jesus Cea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > What they missed to say is that you need to access the whole disk
> > frequently enough in order to give SMART the ability to work.
>
> I thought modern disks could be instructed t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> What they missed to say is that you need to access the whole disk
> frequently enough in order to give SMART the ability to work.
I thought modern disks could be instructed to do "offline scanning",
using any idle time availab
Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Link to the paper is http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
>
> As for the spares debate, that is easy: use spares :-)
What they missed to say is that you need to access the whole disk
frequently enough in order to give SMART the ability
Richard Elling wrote:
Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
I believe that the word would have gone around already, Google
engineers have published a paper on disk reliability. It might
supplement the ZFS FMA integration and well - all the numerous
debates on spares etc etc over here.
Good paper. They
Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
I believe that the word would have gone around already, Google engineers have
published a paper on disk reliability. It might supplement the ZFS FMA
integration and well - all the numerous debates on spares etc etc over here.
Good paper. They validate the old saying
On 18/2/07 4:56, "Akhilesh Mritunjai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> I believe that the word would have gone around already, Google engineers have
> published a paper on disk reliability. It might supplement the ZFS FMA
> integration and well - all the numerous debates on spares etc et
