Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote: > 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. Agreed. But would you then call it SMART? Sounds rather DUMB. Thanks! -- Al - 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
