xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LBA to File?

To: Bogdan Costescu <bogdan.costescu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LBA to File?
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:06:57 -0800
Cc: Michel Machado <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303101141570.11756-100000@kenzo.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de>
References: <20030309213021.GA22398@f00f.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303101141570.11756-100000@kenzo.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:49:30AM +0100, Bogdan Costescu wrote:

> S.M.A.R.T. is supposed to be an industry standard. Now, disk
> manufacturers can on one hand implement only a part of the
> parameters or introduce extensions to this standard; some other
> times they might have their own interpretation of what a parameter
> should mean.

There a vendor-specific and vendor-neutral things you can poll.
Mostly the interesting ones are vendor-specific and I've not found a
source for information about these.

> My impression is that it doesn't depend on whether they are cheap
> drives or not, but more on the manufacturer - f.e. I got almost the
> same parameters for IBM drives from different drive families of
> various ages (last 2 years or so).

I get different values for almost identical Maxtor drives on the same
age....

> IDE controllers cards or mainboards have had S.M.A.R.T. related
> functions for several years - I have Intel 440BX based mainboards
> from 1998 that offer the option of enabling it and give a warning
> message if something is wrong with the disk at boot time.

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think controllers and/or
mainboards need to know anything about SMART at all...  presumably the
BIOS knowledge here allows you to disable it in case the OS gets
confused or something.


  --cw


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>