Hugo Mills wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> You can see all sorts of interesting things here which can easily be
>> used to warn on pending failure of a drive.
>>
>
> It's not actually a very good guide to failure. The figures I've
> seen quoted from NetApp are that SMART data will only give you warning
> of a pending drive failure in about 20% of cases, and that's if you
> know what you're looking for (which most systems don't, as they can't
> do the same level of analysis as NetApp can, to get the data).
>
> Hugo.
>
With my cynical hat on: NetApp would not exactly be an un-biased source
of information seeing as they have a business to run based on selling a
solution. If SMART was better I wouldn't expect them to tell you ;)
But fair enough comment, SMART is not a substitute for a proper storage
solution, more just pointing out that there are already lots of metrics
tracked and stored by even a dumb consumer hard drive.. and assuming
NetApp are correct, 20% is better than nothing.
