Re: unreadable drives can be synchronized?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/18/07, Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrew Burgess schrieb:
>> Basically, B appears to be "write-only"; it will never return an error on a
>> write, but just try to read from it, and you will be sorry.
>
> It would be interesting to see what SMART says about drive B, especially
> the short and long self tests.

I wouldn't rely on SMART.

I have a broken drive, which has lots of badblocks - but SMART happily
claims it's fine (short/long tests are completed without errors).


If you haven't seen Google's hard drive study yet, you should take a look.
It's at http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf

The conclusion says that "some of the SMART parameters are
well-correlated with higher failure probabilities," but also that "a
large fraction of [google's] failed drives have shown no SMART error
signals whatsoever."

Colin
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux