=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jakob_=D8stergaard?= (jakob@ostenfeld.dk) writes:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Even if ext2fs (or ext3fs or Reiser or whatever) doesn't address the bad block
> > > problem ideally, we still have viable options. Even on-the-fly bad block
> > > detection and relocation of data cannot save data that's gone.
> >
> > IDE does it for you most of the time. You can also check the SMART data
> > from newer drives and sometimes it will actually give you advanced warning
> > your disk is about to turn into a 7200 rpm junkyard
>
> I'm actually working on a monitoring tool that can also read SMART data.
>
> Unfortunately the specs are almost impossible to come by :(
>
> I understand that the numbers in smart_values are completely disk-vendor
> specific, but that one should compare those values with the ones in
> smart_thresholds.
>
> But are there any more specific methods for doing this ? Can you
> count on being 50% closer to the threshold is 50% worse (whatever
> that means), or ?
>
> Any pointers to specs would be greatly appreciated.
I'll drink to that! Phase II of this project is getting ATA drives working on
our card (we're using SCSI right now), and I've been lobbying for a SMART
controller, so if it's approved, I'm going to have to put my code where my
mouth is ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:17 EST