Randall R Schulz wrote: > On Friday 09 November 2007 09:43, Robert Smits wrote: >> On Friday 09 November 2007 01:12:31 G T Smith wrote: >>> Robert Smits information rather confirms what I have suspected for >>> some time about how one should assess a S.M.A.R.T report, >>> unfortunately Robert did not give a link for the paper he referred >>> to. I would be interested to have a look at it ... >> Happy to oblige..... >> >> http://209.85.163.132/papers/disk_failures.pdf > > Thanks. > > Oddly enough, when I went to download that into my publications > directory, I discovered I already had a copy that I downloaded back in > February and which is byte-for-byte identical. > >
While this study is great, one should not forget that the google usage environment of hundreds of thousands disks is not directly comparable to what most people do at work or at home. I.e. most people do not work in air-conditioned data centers and most desktops do not run 24x7. So while the google paper is certainly informative and a rare beast in regard to the observation of a very large population of commodity harddisks, I would not dare to use any of it's conclusions lightly for my home usage pattern. regards Eberhard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
