[Discuss] Is this bad?

[abreauj at gmail.com (John Abreau)]

> I find smart isn't very useful.  I've had systems giving hard drive failure
> predictions for years and never have a problem.  And drives that fail
> without warning.  And of course, some drives that predict failure before
> they fail (like it's supposed to do.)  Unfortunately, since the probability
> of each of these three possibilities has been (in my experience)
> approximately equal...  it means I'm getting no value from it.


If smartd doesn't do a good enough job, is there a better alternative
for automated monitoring of disk health on a Linux server or desktop?



-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
OLD GnuPG KeyID: D5C7B5D9 / Email: abreauj at gmail.com
OLD GnuPG FP: 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99
2011 PGP KeyID: 32A492D8 / Email: abreauj at gmail.com
2011 PGP FP: 7834 AEC2 EFA3 565C A4B6 ?9BA4 0ACB AD85 32A4 92D8