On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
> Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
> that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
> Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
> indication that anything was wrong.
I saw that talk, and that's not what I got out of it. They found that
SMART error reports _did_ correlate with drive failure. See page 8
of:
http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/full_papers/pinheiro/pinheiro.pdf
(If you're not a USENIX member, you may be able to find a free
download copy elsewhere.)
However, they found that the correlation was not strong enough to make
it economically feasible to replace disks reporting SMART failures,
since something like 70% of disks were still working a year after the
first failure report. Also, they found that some disks failed without
any SMART error reports.
Now, Google keeps multiple copies (3 in GoogleFS, last I heard) of
data, so for them, "economically feasible" means something different
than for my personal laptop hard drive. I have twice had my laptop
hard drive start spitting SMART errors and then die within a week. It
is economically quite sensible for me to replace my laptop drive once
it has an error, since I don't carry around 3 laptops everywhere I go.
-VAL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
