Google research has shown that built-in disk drive diagnostics only predict about half the drive failures that occur.

Modern disk drives have a built-in self-test and diagnostic facility termed Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology -- SMART. The drive firmware monitors a range of drive parameters, things like the number of seek errors and the disk spin-up time. If these parameters degrade over time it may indicate the unit is heading for a breakdown. With advance warning of an impending disk failure you will have a chance to move files and/or replace the unit before you lose any data.

Google's study looked at more than one hundred thousand disk drives which were a combination of serial and parallel ATA consumer-grade hard disk drives, ranging in speed from 5400 to 7200 rpm, and in size from 80 to 400 GB. The observed range of annualized failure rates varied from 1.7 percent, for drives that were in their first year of operation, to over 8.6 percent, observed in their third year.

The Google researchers found that SMART diagnostics are not as useful as they are supposed to be. They note that there is little independent research into drive life and diagnostics, stating 'Most of the available information comes from the disk manufacturers themselves. Their data are typically based on extrapolation from accelerated life test data of small populations or from returned unit databases.'

They note 'detailed studies of very large populations (of hard drives) are the only way to collect enough failure statistics to enable meaningful conclusions. In this paper we present one such study by examining the population of hard drives under deployment within Google’s computing infrastructure.' Google has 'built an infrastructure that collects vital information about all Google’s systems every few minutes, and a repository that stores these data in time-series format (essentially forever) for further analysis.'

The researchers mined this data and analyzed it looking for correlations between hard drive sensor and SMART readings and failure events. Their findings were:

-- Very little correlation between failure rates and either raised temperature or activity levels.

-- Some SMART parameters (scan errors, reallocation counts, offline reallocation counts, and probational counts) have a large impact on failure probability. Others do not. Out of all failed drives, over 56 percent of them had no count in any of these four strong SMART signals.

Whitepapers

• The Trend from UNIX to Linux in SAP(r) Data Centers
• Secure Wireless Printing Options
• Network-Wide Change Management Visibility with Route Analytics
• Getting in Compliance With Government Data Regulations By Leveraging Online Security Technology
• How to Offer the Strongest SSL Encryption
• Maximizing Site Visitor Trust Using Extended Validation SSL

View more NETWORK MANAGEMENT whitepapers

Webcasts

• Managing the End User Experience-A Real World Example of Success
• Branch Office Trends and Best Practices
• Correlating granular network and application visibility
• Migrating to an MPLS-Based Network
• Round Table Webcast with Forrester Research
• Best Practices for Deploying WAN Optimization for Disaster Recovery

View more NETWORK MANAGEMENT webcasts

Special Reports

• WAN Optimization: The Ultimate No Brainer
• Ehternet Services: WAN options mature
• Keeping Spam at Bay
• Network World Executive Guide: The Virtualization Equation
• Application Performance Management Executive Guide
• Executive Guide: Building a Service Oriented Architecture

View more NETWORK MANAGEMENT special reports