SMART

[Bruce Cran]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:56:16 +0100
Ivan Voras <ivoras at freebsd.org> wrote:

> Yes, it's Seagate. Statistically I have the least problems with their 
> drives. But I imagine that lack of standardization about these 
> statistics very much limits the usability of SMART, right?
> 

The main problem with SMART appears to be that it's not an accurate
predictor of drive failure, according to a study done at Google - see
http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf

-- 
Bruce Cran