1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to an information processing apparatus, a control method therefor, and a computer-readable storage medium storing a program for implementing the control method.
2. Description of the Related Art
In recent years, as image forming apparatuses have become increasingly sophisticated, it has become common to store user data in a nonvolatile device such as an HDD (hard disk drive) or flash memory and read and use the user data when using a certain function.
In this case, when a nonvolatile device in which user data is stored fails, it becomes impossible to read the user data.
As a countermeasure against data loss caused by such a nonvolatile device failure, there is a mirroring function (RAID1) of constantly backing up data using two HDDs and providing notification when the HDDs fail.
There is also a failure predicting function of, before an HDD fails, using S.M.A.R.T. (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology) information on the HDD to provide notification of a failure prediction indicating that a failure of the HDD is anticipated, thus urging a user to back up data.
In a case where, out of the mirroring function and the failure predicting function described above, only the mirroring function is enabled, data is constantly backed up, and hence a service engineer has only to replace the HDD after the HDD fails.
Using an HDD to the limit as described above has a merit of, for a user, eliminating downtime of an image forming apparatus caused by occurrence of an error, and a merit of, for the service engineer, reducing maintenance costs.
On the other hand, in a case where only the failure predicting function is enabled, upon receiving notification of a failure prediction, a service engineer needs to replace an HDD after backing up user data so as to ensure the user data. This failure prediction, however, is merely a prediction, and hence the HDD may fail immediately after notification or may be usable for several years after notification.
In a case where both the mirroring function and the failure predicting function are enabled, when notification of a failure prediction using the failure predicting function is provided, notification of an error is provided to a user although an HDD can still be used.
As a result, it is necessary to replace the HDD of an image forming apparatus for which notification of the error has been provided, resulting in undesired downtime and cost of maintenance by a service engineer.
Moreover, when both the mirroring function and the failure predicting function are enabled, this means that an image forming apparatus is equipped with two HDDs. In this case, when notification of a failure prediction with respect to both the two HDDs is provided, it is necessary to notify a user of the failure prediction although the two HDDs are unlikely to fail at the same time. The user, however, does not know what to do even when he/she is notified of the failure prediction.
In relation to the above described technique, there has been disclosed a technique that S.M.A.R.T. information is stored in a server in case that the S.M.A.R.T. information is corrupted, and in the server, the S.M.A.R.T. information is compared with a previous log to thus reduce the load for analyzing the cause of a failure (see, for example, Japanese Laid Open Patent Publication (Kokai) No. 2001-312375).
Also, there has been disclosed a technique that a failure is predicted based on, for example, the number of accesses to an HDD or the like (see, for example, Japanese Laid Open Patent Publication (Kokai) No. 2006-256251).
For example, according to the technique described in Japanese Laid Open Patent Publication (Kokai) No. 2001-312375, a server can be notified of a status of an image forming apparatus, and also, values obtained using the failure predicting function can be backed up to the server.
According to the technique described in Japanese Laid Open Patent Publication (Kokai) No. 2006-256251, a failure can be predicted based on the number of accesses. These conventional arts can improve the accuracy of the failure predicting function.
However, when both the mirroring function and the failure predicting function are enabled, problems described hereafter arise. First, unnecessary notification of a failure prediction is provided to a user. This means that, for example, an image forming apparatus provides notification of a failure prediction to a user interface or the like.
Next, unnecessary notification of a failure prediction is provided to a service engineer. This means that, for example, unnecessary notification of an error is provided to a server that manages an image forming apparatus, and a service engineer is called.
Moreover, notification of a failure prediction is provided which causes a service engineer to falsely recognize that a trouble is serious and urgent. This means that, for example, notification of an error is provided to a server that manages an image forming apparatus, and the service engineer is called although a visit of the service engineer is unnecessary.
Further, even if a display indicative of a failure prediction notification is produced on a user interface of an image forming apparatus or the like, a user does not know what to do.
As described above, the conventional techniques have the problem of requiring unnecessary operational costs for calling a service engineer, replacing an HDD, and so on.