SMART

[Ivan Voras]

Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:56:16 +0100
> Ivan Voras <ivoras at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, it's Seagate. Statistically I have the least problems with their 
>> drives. But I imagine that lack of standardization about these 
>> statistics very much limits the usability of SMART, right?
> 
> The main problem with SMART appears to be that it's not an accurate
> predictor of drive failure, according to a study done at Google - see
> http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf

I've seen it. But I don't remember if they addressed the problem of 
nonstandard interpretations of statistics? I do remember they said they 
buy from multiple drive vendors.