From: dave@davehigton.me.uk   
      
   In message    
             Lawrence D'Oliveiro  wrote:   
      
   > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 21:35:02 +0100, druck wrote:   
   >   
   > > On 24/07/2024 01:34, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > Companies whose business it is to ensure data integrity do not rely on   
   > > > SMART.   
   > >   
   > > No, they use hardware RAID for redundancy, extensive performance   
   > > monitoring, and retire most disks before they fail based on the small   
   > > percentage of failures of thousands of other discs of the same type.   
   >   
   > Actually, no. They wait until the disks actually fail before replacing   
   > them.   
      
   Anyone with any sense would replace them before the bathtub failure curve   
   starts to rise, which is usually not long after the end of the warranty   
   period.   
      
   > > But that's not what the typical person with a Raspberry Pi and a couple   
   > > of discs is able to do. The SMART information gives valuable warning of   
   > > potential failures, to ignore it would be to employ the STUPID feature of   
   > > the user.   
   >   
   > Unfortunately, SMART only catches about 30% of potential failures. That's   
   > why relying on it is not smart.   
      
   It's smarter than catching 0% of potential failures by waiting until they   
   have already happened.   
      
   David   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)