Como as notas quixote quackote, os SSDs implementam o SMART. No entanto, pode não ser tão útil quanto alegado. O labs.google.com publicou um white paper sobre falhas de unidade há algum tempo. O que é preciso para muitos: a SMART não é tão útil para unidades individuais.
Do papel (ênfase adicionada):
We conclude that it is unlikely that SMART data alone can be effectively used to build models that predict failures of individual drives. SMART parameters still appear to be useful in reasoning about the aggregate reliability of large disk populations, which is still very important for logistics and supply-chain planning.
e
Our results confirm the findings of previous smaller
population studies that suggest that some of the SMART
parameters are well-correlated with higher failure probabilities.
We find, for example, that after their first scan
error, drives are 39 times more likely to fail within 60
days than drives with no such errors. First errors in reallocations,
offline reallocations, and probational counts
are also strongly correlated to higher failure probabilities.
Despite those strong correlations, we find that
failure prediction models based on SMART parameters
alone are likely to be severely limited in their prediction
accuracy, given that a large fraction of our failed drives
have shown no SMART error signals whatsoever. This
result suggests that SMART models are more useful in
predicting trends for large aggregate populations than for
individual components. It also suggests that powerful
predictive models need to make use of signals beyond
those provided by SMART.
Embora isso possa não ser verdadeiro para SSDs, é algo que você deve ter em mente.