On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 12:27 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 08:35:49 -0500, > "David G. Mackay" <mackay_d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Shouldn't there have been some indication of problems prior to the > > failure? > > Only if you are lucky. Someone at Google published some information about > smart around a year ago. In cases where catastrophic failures occur, for a high > percentage there is no warning from smart. Thanks, I'll have to look that up. Suddenly the feeling that I'm getting about smart isn't quite so warm and fuzzy. Dave
