[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Load_Cycle_Count: Is 600000 bad?

Paolo wrote:
> 225 Load_Cycle_Count 0x0032 001   001   070    Old_age   Always   FAILING_NOW 3812632

A good example that a high load cycle count doesn't mean that your
disk is required to die.  That one is quite large and I am glad to
hear that it is still working well.

> with uptimes of months (always on, till it crashes/hangs ;) ) since - hm - 
> 2002.

Or until the next kernel security upgrade is posted and you need to
reboot into the new kernel.  The 2.4 series "seemed" (subjective
feeling) more long term stable in general than the 2.6 series has
been in the last couple of years.  I am sure that someone has already
analyzed the DSAs to show the required reboot rates.  :-)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: