From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
Subject: Re: PATA/SATA Disk Reliability paper
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:26:16 +0300
Message-ID: <200702191426.16567.a1426z@gawab.com>
References: <45D89FF5.3020303@sauce.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="windows-1256"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <45D89FF5.3020303@sauce.co.nz>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

Richard Scobie wrote:
> Thought this paper may be of interest. A study done by Google on over
> 100,000 drives they have/had in service.
>
> http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf

Interesting link.  They seem to point out that smart not necessarily warns of  
pending failure.  This is probably worse than not having smart at all, as it 
gives you the illusion of safety.

If there is one thing to watch out for, it is "dew".

I remember video machines sensing for dew, so do any drives sense for "dew"?


Thanks!

--
Al