On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 21:56, Angela Kahealani wrote:
> On Saturday 2004-08-28 14:12, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
> > 80G drive[s ] were just showing up on the seen
>
> well, whether things were "on the scene" or "on the screen", they were
> NOT "on the seen".
>
> > Shouldn't I have had _some_ notification?
>
> There is only one valid "should":
> "there should be no shoulds".
Well thank you for spotting my typos. Now that you've done all the
heavy lifting, perhaps we can get back to the _point_?
> > Isn't this what smartd was designed to identify?
>
> SMARTd doesn't identify anything.
> It only reports what the firmware in the drive identifies.
>
> If you had a SCSI drive, it's no surprise...
> SMART wasn't as developed on them historically.
> On any kind of OLD drive, SMART was not as smart as SMART is today.
Right; all IDE, here.
> In my experience, mostly with SCSI drives, they always were smart enough
> to whine loudly before failure: of the spindle bearings... reaching
> rotational failure before any other kind of failure... and I was smart
> enough to heed the warning and replace the drive before it became
> unreadable.
>
> Now can we please get back on topic?
Sure; why does Fedora bother to carry anything to do with
smartmontools if it isn't capable of any positive effect? Is it,
perhaps a game?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian FahrlÃnder Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ 5119262
AIM: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
