heck with seagate !!!!!

[truckerCLOCK]

I just got home to find yet another Seagate drive has failed. This the last drive I will ever buy from them. That will be 3...the first was a 1 TB 7200 which lasted almost 1 yr to the day I bought it, a 1 TB Freeagent and now a 2 TB 7200. They have all been under waranty but this is getting to just be stupid. Seagate Im out ...

title edited, even disguised profanity in titles is frowned upon
at mod
gillbot

 

[groberts101]

I and many of my storage hoarding buddies have had nothing but success with them.

I'd seriously be l;ooking at the cooling and voltage inconsistencies that are likely present on any system that eats hard drives at that rate.

 

[lsv]

I and many of my storage hoarding buddies have had nothing but success with them.

I'd seriously be l;ooking at the cooling and voltage inconsistencies that are likely present on any system that eats hard drives at that rate.

This. I've used Seagates in the past and use Western Digital's now for power, silence and cooling.

I've never really had any problems with any drives as I keep drives cool and powered by high quality PSUs.

 

[Gillbot]

title edited, even disguised profanity in titles is frowned upon
at mod
gillbot

 

[stahlhart]

Same here -- only one faulty Seagate, an 80Gb internal, in 15 years of building, and I only noticed when I pulled it out of mothballs to try and install in a scratch build (it didn't fail while in use). I've got a 7200.11 1Tb in the previous main build that's been working great for several years now.

I did get nailed by the 75GXP Deathstar fiasco, though. :awe:

 

[exdeath]

It's not just Seagate, it's everybody. Seagate, Hitachi, Toshiba, Western Digital, I've replaced them all and all have the same rate of failure.

Drives becoming more and more unreliable is just a consequence of 1950s magnetic record player technology being squeezed to the limit. We were never intended to have 1+ TB HDD :awe:

Personally, prior to SSD I've at some point had just about every generation Raptor (WD) and Cheetah (Seagate) made since the first generation drives were only 18GB and I've never had a single one fail or show a single "bad mark" in SMART even with years of constant use. They were either replaced with higher capacity or faster drives as they became available, or were retired to "scrap" PCs that were used by guests or eventually given away. If those drives didn't get hot, I don't know what does.

The last set of desktop dino drives to leave my house, 2 x 74 GB Raptors went out the door to a new home with zero SMART errors with 7 years of use, including 3 years of hard WoW play in a 24/7 "on" desktop "gaming" environment. I know the person I gave my 4 x 18 GB Cheetah X15s and Mylex 352 i960 card to just to screw with and they are still running good as new, and they are what over 10 years old?

 

[truckerCLOCK]

Apologize for profanities ..... just so frustrated.

I'd seriously be looking at the cooling and voltage inconsistencies that are likely present on any system that eats hard drives at that rate.

Well I guess that could be an issue if out of all my drives ( 4 -WD , 2- Hitachi, 2 - IBM and an 1- OLD Maxtor ) the Seagates have failed.


and I just found this....

SEAGATE'S FLAGSHIP desktop Barracuda 7200.11 drives, in particular the 1TB (ST31000340AS) units, are failing at an alarming rate and prompting outrage from their faithful customers.
A new self-bricking feature apparently resides in faulty firmware microcode which will rear its ugly head sometime at boot detection. Essentially the drive will be working as normal for a while, then - out of the blue - it'll brick itself to death. The next time you reboot your computer the drive will simply lock itself up as a failsafe and won't be detected by the BIOS. In other words, there's power, spin-up, but no detection to enable booting.

 

[exdeath]

All storage devices are unreliable at some level. Get used to it, and always have backups, problem solved.

At least when SSDs die it only takes 120 seconds to reimage the entire partition at 550+ MB/sec when you have to RMA.

 

[BTA]

I've not had good luck with Seagate of late either. Just got another back from RMA actually. Seems okay, better than the last drive. The last one had a very annoying vibration to it, pulsating almost. Was probably off balance and just waiting to die. It started clicking so I sent it back.

Have an RMA'd 1.5tb that still seems okay in my WHS server.

I have a 250gig Seagate running my VM's on the server but I think it's starting to get bad sectors and have issues too.

Damnit Samsung, why did you have to sell off your HD business to Seagate?

 

[groberts101]

SEAGATE'S FLAGSHIP desktop Barracuda 7200.11 drives, in particular the 1TB (ST31000340AS) units, are failing at an alarming rate and prompting outrage from their faithful customers.

I thought about mentioning the 11 series issues as the excepetion.. but you seemed to be talking about different models and the timeframes didn't seem to fit the 11 series release dates. Those drives are well over 2 years old by now and the 12 series fixed all those issues. Even the 11 series got a late firmware fix before they moved to the 12 series drives.

BTW.. I have 12 x 500GB -12's in my wokstation running in 3 different arrays(2 x 2 drive onboard arrays and 1 x 8 drive card based array) without one single bad sector or smart error so far. Most are just over 2 years old.

 

[Puffnstuff]

My biggest failures have been from dying ssd's of the sf1222 family and not limited a particular brand. Backups are your friend and never put important files on your boot drive.

 

[groberts101]

Friendly FYI here Puffnstuff.. power transitions with those particular SF controllers are your biggest enemy. S1 sleeps only.. or just shut the machine down normally.

 

[Coup27]

At least when SSDs die it only takes 120 seconds to reimage the entire partition at 550+ MB/sec when you have to RMA.

I don't think many people use SSDs to store their backup images.

 

[groberts101]

I don't think many people use SSDs to store their backup images.

I think he meant to restore the image back ovee to the replcment drive.

Although I find it funny when people talk about transfer speeds like that when the chances of them having that backup image stored on another volume capable of reading at that speed is slim.

The reality is that we can only write to an SSD(not that any write that fast yet either) as fast as the storage volume can be read.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Brand bashing threads like this are annoying. Seagate is one of the top, if not the top, hard drive manufacturer there is in the enterprise space, as well as the OEM space (Dell puts Seagate in their computers). They may put cheaper tech in their consumer drives, but do you think it behooves Seagate in any way to cheapen things down to the point that *any* line of hard drives they sell gains a bad reputation? The 7200.11 problems were certainly a black mark, but they weren't necessarily the result of going too cheap. It was a firmware problem, not cheaper silicon.

So you had bad luck with a few drives. At least they were under warranty. I'm sure you'll be back posting in a couple years about how you're never buying WD again cause you've had a few WD drives fail on you. As others have said, Seagate is a good brand and I've had good results from *lots* of Seagate drives over the years. Either chalk up your misfortune to environmental factors, or accept that you're an outlier on the statistical curve. Oh, and backup your stuff. Because whatever brand you switch to, they're not going to be much better (if at all) than Seagate.

 

[BFG10K]

I'd seriously be l;ooking at the cooling and voltage inconsistencies that are likely present on any system that eats hard drives at that rate.

I had two 500 GB Seagate .10s fail in a row, with the second being the replacement for the first. The same system has been running multiple WD drives for years without issue. It's the HDDs that are faulty, not the system.

 

[BFG10K]

Drives becoming more and more unreliable is just a consequence of 1950s magnetic record player technology being squeezed to the limit. We were never intended to have 1+ TB HDD

SSDs have not proven to be more reliable than mechanical HDDs in studies that have been done thus-far. Not bad for 1950s technology with moving parts. Or should I say, a rather poor showing for SSDs.

 

[Coup27]

I think he meant to restore the image back ovee to the replcment drive.

Well yes, but the source of the image would still need to be an SSD to hit those speeds. Unless I guess it's stored on a multiple disk RAID array. Didn't think of that.

 

[Golgatha]

I and many of my storage hoarding buddies have had nothing but success with them.

I'd seriously be l;ooking at the cooling and voltage inconsistencies that are likely present on any system that eats hard drives at that rate.

Meh, I use a UPS and have a very stable high-end power supply with plenty of cooling in my system. I've had 2 Seagate drives fail under warranty last year, and one of those two I had to send back in a second time. Samsung and Western Digital drives have been much more reliable in comparison, although I did have a WD Velociraptor fail a few months ago. Western Digital upgraded me to a new HLFS drive for the GLFS drive I sent in, so no complaints there though. Western Digital's return policies and process are also much better IMO, should you need them.

I haven't purchased many Samsung drives over the years yet and probably won't continue to purchase them since Seagate now owns them. Besides the Velociraptor drive I sent in a few months ago, the last dead Western Digital I sent in was a 10.2GB model that was DOA. I've purchased a lot of Western Digital drives and find them to be highly reliable.

 

[groberts101]

Well yes, but the source of the image would still need to be an SSD to hit those speeds. Unless I guess it's stored on a multiple disk RAID array. Didn't think of that.

even if it were stored on another fast SSD.. or even a raid setup? it would not be written at 550MB/s to the source SSD(none exist that can write data that fast). It would need to be an image restore to raided SSD(and coming from another array/SSD that can read at least that fast) to ever have a chance at reaching those speeds.

That's why we always add salt to posts on a forum, right? lol

 

[FAUguy]

Last month, I mentioned is this thread that I purchased two new Seagate Barracuda 3TB drives ST3000DM001 that have the newer three 1TB platters. After using them for two days, they both died on me, making loud clicking sounds. After that, I doubt I'll be using Seagate anytime soon.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Since 2004 or so I've owned (desktop drives):

2 Hitachis
4 Seagates
4 WDs
6 Samsung F4s (NAS)

The Seagate 7200.8 failed TWICE (2x RMA) on me, and one of the Hitachis eventually failed last year but its been running since 2004.

I've also had 2-3 mobile failures but those were all Hitachi drives. But given how I take care of my laptops, I wouldn't blame the laptop but the use I put them through

Don't know if I could say "omg to hell with this drive." I always monitor SMART, and those 7200.8 failures were based on SMART only. I have yet to lose data on desktop drives (knock on wood).

 

[slag]

Drives becoming more and more unreliable is just a consequence of 1950s magnetic record player technology being squeezed to the limit. We were never intended to have 1+ TB HDD :awe:

:whiste:

 

[Coup27]

That's why we always add salt to posts on a forum, right? lol

lol