Al Boldi <a1426z@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 SMART gives you the illusion of safety, you didn't understand SMART.
SMART hints *only* the potential presence or occurence of failures in
the future, it does not prove the absence of such - and nobody ever said
it does. It would even be impossible to do that, though (which is easy
to prove by just utilizing an external damaging tool like a hammer).
Concluding from that that not having any failure detector at all is
better than having at least an imperfect one is IMHO completely wrong.
regards
Mario
--
File names are infinite in length where infinity is set to 255 characters.
-- Peter Collinson, "The Unix File System"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
