From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe Subject: Re: PATA/SATA Disk Reliability paper Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:15:45 +0100 Message-ID: References: <45D89FF5.3020303@sauce.co.nz> <200702191426.16567.a1426z@gawab.com> Return-path: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Al Boldi wrote: > Interesting link. They seem to point out that smart not necessarily warns of > pending failure. This is probably worse than not having smart at all, as it > gives you the illusion of safety. If SMART gives you the illusion of safety, you didn't understand SMART. SMART hints *only* the potential presence or occurence of failures in the future, it does not prove the absence of such - and nobody ever said it does. It would even be impossible to do that, though (which is easy to prove by just utilizing an external damaging tool like a hammer). Concluding from that that not having any failure detector at all is better than having at least an imperfect one is IMHO completely wrong. regards Mario -- File names are infinite in length where infinity is set to 255 characters. -- Peter Collinson, "The Unix File System"