[ale] 9.10 smart errors

[J. D.]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:39 AM,  <krwatson at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> > SMART may not be as smart as everyone thinks.
> >
> > Failure Trends in a Large Disk Drive Population
> > Eduardo Pinheiro, Wolf-Dietrich Weber and Luiz André Barroso
> > http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.html
> >
> > Download: PDF Version
> > http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
> >
>
> >Predictive failure accuracy is poor (in most fields and hard drives in
> >particular) as the physics is just not understood well enough. And the
> >report is from a company who regularly bakes hard drives in daily use.
> >Any error in SMART is currently viewed and catastrophic which is
> >likely overkill. However, my anecdotal evidence is that once a drive
> >begins to show any errors, there is a recurrence time that begins to
> >accelerate with each new instance of sector failure in most cases. The
> >big thing to watch for with the new tools is the failed sector count.
> >There's a limit to how many the drive can automatically recover from.
> >Once that limit is reached, data loss is eminent. So I tend to keep a
> >drive until the count is just below the upper limit of reserved
> >blocks.
>

In my case I believe the tool reported around 1700 bad sectors. This seems
like an alarming amount don't you think? I need to check it again and see if
it has changed.

Best regards,

J. D.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20091102/c9c6eb4b/attachment-0001.html