W
Will Dormann
SMART monitoring sounds like a great idea to me. Who better to predict
a drive's failure than the drive itself, right? I mean, the drive knows
what it's doing internally, such as silently remapping bad sectors,
keeping track of how long it takes to spin up, error counts and all that
fun stuff.
SMART is there, comforting me.
Calling out "I'm good. I'll never let you down"
And then another drive begins to show symptoms of impending failure. In
my particular case, it's a Seagate Barracuda V. Just a couple months
past the expiration of the 1-year warranty.
And I start to realize that I can't recall a single case where SMART has
predicted a failure before I actually see the symptoms of the failing
drive. Not in any of the machines I own, or in machines of other people
I know. I've used HDD Health, DTemp, Promise Fastcheck, smartmontools
and ide-smart (on linux), and various manufacturer's utilities for
checking smart.
I've been able to monitor temperatures (it's at 37C right now, which
seems to be the norm for it), and I can look at statistics on the drive.
But not once has SMART actually predicted problems with a drive
before I actually see the symptoms (such as a repeated "thunk" sound, a
frozen mouse in Win2k with the HDD light on solid, or event log entries
indicating a drive error). Doing a full surface scan in all such cases
has indicated bad sectors on the drive.
Is SMART not predictive enough? Is this a fault of the various SMART
monitoring utilities? If SMART doesn't "kick in" until later on in the
dying process, then what good is it? (If I can see the symptoms well in
advance of it giving me a warning) What are your experiences with SMART
and its (in)ability to predict failure?
Thanks.
-WD
a drive's failure than the drive itself, right? I mean, the drive knows
what it's doing internally, such as silently remapping bad sectors,
keeping track of how long it takes to spin up, error counts and all that
fun stuff.
SMART is there, comforting me.
Calling out "I'm good. I'll never let you down"
And then another drive begins to show symptoms of impending failure. In
my particular case, it's a Seagate Barracuda V. Just a couple months
past the expiration of the 1-year warranty.
And I start to realize that I can't recall a single case where SMART has
predicted a failure before I actually see the symptoms of the failing
drive. Not in any of the machines I own, or in machines of other people
I know. I've used HDD Health, DTemp, Promise Fastcheck, smartmontools
and ide-smart (on linux), and various manufacturer's utilities for
checking smart.
I've been able to monitor temperatures (it's at 37C right now, which
seems to be the norm for it), and I can look at statistics on the drive.
But not once has SMART actually predicted problems with a drive
before I actually see the symptoms (such as a repeated "thunk" sound, a
frozen mouse in Win2k with the HDD light on solid, or event log entries
indicating a drive error). Doing a full surface scan in all such cases
has indicated bad sectors on the drive.
Is SMART not predictive enough? Is this a fault of the various SMART
monitoring utilities? If SMART doesn't "kick in" until later on in the
dying process, then what good is it? (If I can see the symptoms well in
advance of it giving me a warning) What are your experiences with SMART
and its (in)ability to predict failure?
Thanks.
-WD