[OT] Smartd: Worth the effort?

Brian Fahrlander brian at fahrlander.net
Sun Aug 29 11:31:16 UTC 2004


On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 21:56, Angela Kahealani wrote:
> On Saturday 2004-08-28 14:12, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
> > 80G drive[s ] were just showing up on the seen 
> 
> well, whether things were "on the scene" or "on the screen", they were 
> NOT "on the seen".
> 
> > Shouldn't I have had _some_ notification?  
> 
> There is only one valid "should":
> "there should be no shoulds".

    Well thank you for spotting my typos. Now that you've done all the
heavy lifting, perhaps we can get back to the _point_?

> > Isn't this what smartd was designed to identify?
> 
> SMARTd doesn't identify anything. 
> It only reports what the firmware in the drive identifies.
> 
> If you had a SCSI drive, it's no surprise... 
> SMART wasn't as developed on them historically.
> On any kind of OLD drive, SMART was not as smart as SMART is today.

    Right; all IDE, here.

> In my experience, mostly with SCSI drives, they always were smart enough 
> to whine loudly before failure: of the spindle bearings... reaching 
> rotational failure before any other kind of failure... and I was smart 
> enough to heed the warning and replace the drive before it became 
> unreadable. 
> 
> Now can we please get back on topic?

    Sure; why does Fedora bother to carry anything to do with
smartmontools if it isn't capable of any positive effect?  Is it,
perhaps a game?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fahrländer                  Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN                                 http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ 5119262
AIM: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040829/cf61ba85/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the fedora-list mailing list