From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Joshua Wood Subject: Re: [9fans] ata drive capabilities Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:44:32 -0800 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2216b20c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > >From everything I've seen, SMART has zero correlation with real > hardware issues -- confirmed by a discussion with someone at a big > search company. SMART is dumb. If it's everyone's favorite ``big search company'' in question, they have an [only moderately depressing] paper: http://209.85.163.132/papers/disk_failures.pdf Turns out from their big sample that, nope, SMART isn't good at predicting failure; nor are temperature or activity levels. Instead it seems like almost entirely a manufacturing crapshoot. SMART looks no smarter in CMU's study of the same topic, which nixes age as a good failure predictor, too: http://www.usenix.org/event/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder_html/ index.html -- Josh