On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:54:37PM +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 14:01:10 +1200, Daniel Lawson wrote:
So SMART is fine for telling you a drive is *not healthy*. On the other hand, SMART is no use at telling you a drive is *healthy*: A clean bill of health today, according to SMART, doesn’t mean the drive won’t catastrophically fail tomorrow. This is the conclusion that the google paper drew, but a lot of people seem to misinterpret it.
This is why I don’t bother with SMART. Sit down and work out the maths: relying on SMART greatly increases your rate of replacement of drives, without a corresponding increase in the reliability of your data.
Yes, that is what I take from Daniel's statements above. SMART is very specific but not very sensitive at detecting impending hard driver failure which defeats its purpose. Cheers Michael.