Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

Seagate ST3000DM001 Data Corruption


Technogod
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm so sorry, I know exactly how you feel because the same thing happened to me some weeks ago on the same model drive. And the funny thing about it was the HSS podcast had mentioned the https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/ Backblaze article that showed (enough proof to my eyes anyway) that those drives were junk, but I didn't find out my drive died until the very moment I tried backing up data OFF of it. It's clearly that specific model, but I can understand why folks would swear off the brand entirely. I still don't have the data back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clearly that specific model, but I can understand why folks would swear off the brand entirely. I still don't have the data back.

 

Which again ties back into the idea that Seagate needs to make it much easier to identify individual models of drives. I think this could help increase sales, by allowing people to target specific products to avoid instead of swearing off the brand completely. And, in the end, it could help Seagate identify products to get rid of, something that would be healthier for the company overall. I don't know; Seagate seems pretty miopic in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Which again ties back into the idea that Seagate needs to make it much easier to identify individual models of drives. I think this could help increase sales, by allowing people to target specific products to avoid instead of swearing off the brand completely. And, in the end, it could help Seagate identify products to get rid of, something that would be healthier for the company overall. I don't know; Seagate seems pretty miopic in this area.

I sincerely doubt it.

 

Not just in the computer field, but I've seen people swear off a brand or company or chain because of one or two band experiences.

Because they have the bad experience, they assume that this is "par for the course", and in some causes without actually any sort of investigation.

 

It's like reading reviews. "I'll never buy from this brand again".... especially when you read their review and realize that they were "doing it wrong". 

 

And shit happens. Considering how amazingly complex the drives are, and how complex the file system actually is... it's a daily miracle that you can access your data consistently and reliably. One that we take for granted. 

 

And I think until WD and Seagate either get their acts together... or start creating a bunch of "satellite copies" to sell their drives under different names, that people will act ... well childish and storm off and refuse to buy that brand "ever again".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seagate also need to get their act together as regards availability.  Here in the UK, you can't easily get a lot of Seagate's drives.  You can get plenty of 1TB & 3TB 7200rpm and 4TB Desktop.15, but other than those choice is severely limited.  

 

WD is available everywhere, and you can easily get Greens, Blues, Blacks, Reds, RE, SE, even the Purple.  Today I nearly ordered a pair of 4TB WD AV-GP, which is a 24/7 Green sold for 'media servers'.  Try getting a Seagate Pipeline.HD 4TB...

 

People's experiences of Seagate seem to be down to using crappy drives in the wrong situations, because of a lack of availability, or a lack of understanding about which drive is suitable for what.  WD's colours is a brilliant idea to get the correct drive in the correct situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree about the Seagate drives being misused. Everyone seems to have had trouble with the ST3000DM001 drives, in any application, every application :).

 

I completely agree about WD's use of colours. Seagate has needed something like this for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree about WD's use of colours. Seagate has needed something like this for years.

You mean like classifying the drives as "desktop", NAS, low power, surveillance, etc? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree about the Seagate drives being misused. Everyone seems to have had trouble with the ST3000DM001 drives, in any application, every application :).

 

I completely agree about WD's use of colours. Seagate has needed something like this for years.

My ST3000DM001 drives are running fine. Please share your data on everyone that is having trouble with any and every application.

 

The WD color scheme does make it easy to identify the use case, but that does not mean that people use them that way. People use Red's for single drive applications and Greens on RAID5. Not the designed use for either drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Start with BackBlaze's experiences with the ST3000DM001 drives. Add to that Technogod's experience, and that of many other posters on these forums. Even Joe_Miner has had issues with this model of drive (http://homeservershow.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8772-another-highly-questionable-post-from-backblaze/page-3#entry95327).

 

Since it's not possible to obtain truly scientific data related to HDD lifespan and reliability, because manufacturers won't publish such data, we have to go by the info we can get. From that info, I believe it is more probable than not that ST300DM001 drives are less reliable, and have shorter lifespans, than many other makes and models.

 

Certainly there are people who use drives in ways that WD doesn't support. However, I don't think we can conclude that this accounts for a significant portion of the drives that failed prematurely. My own experience with WD Greens is a case in point. I have used hundreds of Greenies over the years. None of them were used in RAID arrays. They weren't even used in servers. These were desktop computers. Despite that, I sent out Green drives for RMA at a relative rate that was much higher than other HDDs. Eventually, I won the argument to stop buying them (after a Greenie died in a Finance Dept. computer and took some financial data with it that was never recovered. Yes, the user should have had the data backed up on a server —we all know that—but we all know users abuse the rules all the time.).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...