Seagate 3TB high failure rate --Backblaze

[StinkyPinky]

Uh.....yeah. Definitely better off with the 4TB model. Must be some design flaw

 

[Binky]

I've had a mix of mostly Seagate 2-4TB ~5900rpm drives flowing through my server for years. My only recent failure is a 3TB 7200 rpm seagate that was mounted in my desktop machine. It just happens to be the same model as in this backblaze study. Doh!

All of my 5900rpm seagates have done fine and I have no problem recommending those.

 

[StinkyPinky]

What about the 2 and 4TB SSHD models? They don't seem much more expensive. Gimmick or is there some real work performance increases?

 

[Owls]

It's been a while since we've had something as bad as the Deathstar.

 

[Annisman*]

I have 4 of these drives for my HTPC :O

Am I headed for catastrophic failure ?

 

[KentState]

I know in my NAS, the Seagate 3TB drives dropped like flies. They where the most affordable solution just after the flooding drove the prices up a few years ago. Only 2 out of the 10 I purchased lasted much longer than a year and have since been replaced my WD Red 3TB drives. The Red's and 1TB RE4's before them just never had a problem.

 

[Annisman*]

I will say this, I have been incredibly lucky with hard drives, I have never, not once had a mechanical drive fail on me, and I have had SSD's fail on me instead...

 

[therealnickdanger]

My own anecdote:

All my HDD failures in the past 5 years have been Seagate 3TB+ drives (three drives total, two 3TB, one 4TB). None of my 3TB+ Hitachi/HGST drives have failed. I've traced the issue to the drive's power management firmware. Seagate applies extremely aggressive APM to its lower cost drives in order to manage potential heat problems, but mostly to market the drives as "green". The result is a dead head, usually a couple months after the 1-year warranty. I have been exclusively buying HGST since my third Seagate died.

I have three Seagate 5TB still in operation, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time...

 

[fstime]

Can confirm, my 3TB Seagate which I used as a backup drive just failed.

I believe this drive is about ~2 years old.

One day, I navigated to my computer and opened up the mentioned drive, only to receive an infinite loading icon and then the click of death repeatedly.

Luckily, I bought this right before they switched from a 5 year warranty to a 1 year warranty.

On a secondary note, my 74 gb WD Raptor is still kicking after all these years. From now one, I will only be buying drives which are approved for 24hr usage, even though I don't leave my PC on all the time.

 

[Ketchup]

Seagate 3 TB NAS drive for $109. Get 'em while they're parked, lol.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...22178392-S1A2C

 

[nk215]

What the hell. I just bought 2 3T seagate HDDs a few weeks ago (newegg deal). The deal was too good to pass up at the time. I am using them as RAID1 for important data backup at the office.

I'll be switching them out with a a pair of 3-year old WD black this weekend. There's a good chance that 3-year old WD will out last brand new 3TB seagate . What a said situation.

 

[redzo]

My own anecdote:

All my HDD failures in the past 5 years have been Seagate 3TB+ drives (three drives total, two 3TB, one 4TB). None of my 3TB+ Hitachi/HGST drives have failed. I've traced the issue to the drive's power management firmware. Seagate applies extremely aggressive APM to its lower cost drives in order to manage potential heat problems, but mostly to market the drives as "green". The result is a dead head, usually a couple months after the 1-year warranty. I have been exclusively buying HGST since my third Seagate died.

I have three Seagate 5TB still in operation, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time...

I have completely disabled head parking on all of my wd greens. Load/unload cycle count has basically frozen. Also, there are no more clicking sounds coming from the drives during idle operation. I don't know if/how that's gonna affect reliability...

 

[Ketchup]

It should be noted that they only have data for two models, and out of those two only one of them (ST3000DM001) was really driving up the number:
warning: this quote is not formatting well

Backblaze Hard Drive Failure Rates Through December 31, 2014
Name/Model Size Number of Drives Average Age Annual Failure Rate
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14
(ST3000DM001) 3.0 TB 1,163 2.2 43.1% 40.8% – 45.4%
Seagate Barracuda XT
(ST33000651AS) 3.0 TB 279 2.9 4.8% 2.6% – 8.0%

 

[Cerb]

I've got the 2TB version of that high failure rate one (ST2000DM001), and after several months of being very quiet (could hear it spin up and down outside the case, but not spinning at 7200 RPM), it started making noise, best described as a a repetitive, "swish," sound. SMART may look fine, but if that's not a pre-failure symptom, I don't know what is. It's now a backup drive.

 

[redzo]

Has anybody checked the spec-sheet for the baracuda series? ST2000DM001 included.
http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/barracuda-ds1737-1-1111us.pdf
Are they rated at only max 2400 hours of reliable continuous operation or am I reading it the wrong way? If that's the case, there is no wonder that they do not last much.

 

[exar333]

LOL, glad I got 4TB WD ones.

 

[Ketchup]

That is odd, because right above it they rate these at 300,000 load/unload cycles. I wish they had just included MTBF, but I don't see it.

Eshop says the 3 TB model is rated for 750,000 hours.
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Seagate/ST3000DM001/

In (slight) contrast, WD rates their Reds at 1 million.
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/flyer/eng/2278-771047.pdf

 

[blastingcap]

I have said since 7200.11 to avoid Seagate and I continue to say that for obvious reasons.

 

[jackd1839]

Seagate a brand name i have heard that earlier also. the rate of failure is more. I agree. Even i got messedup with my 1 TB Seagate HD 3 YEARS Back. But seeing this ratio i dont dare to make my mind for this.

 

[blastingcap]

Has anybody checked the spec-sheet for the baracuda series? ST2000DM001 included.
http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/barracuda-ds1737-1-1111us.pdf
Are they rated at only max 2400 hours of reliable continuous operation or am I reading it the wrong way? If that's the case, there is no wonder that they do not last much.

That's on a per year basis. They are meant for 8-5 weekday office hours only, not 24/7.

 

[redzo]

That's still too low if you ask me. Also, "continuous" is highly speculative. If we are allowed to add them up without non-stop operation, you'll end up with only 300 days / 8 service hours per day. I take it still too low.

So the ST3000DM001 is 100% not meant to be deployed in a storage pod. The storage pod means 24/7 non-stop operation. Those guys are using this model of hdd the wrong way. It means that saying that this particular model is unreliable based on their data is totally wrong.

2400hours = 100 days. After only one year of non-stop service, the storage pod would have turned those drives into lemons. In fact, it can be considered a miracle if some of the ST3000DM001's lasted more than 1 year.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Some of you people read waaaaaay too much into manufacturer's specs.

 

[WiseUp216]

Timely thread. My 3TB is going back to Seagate this week. It lasted around 18 months until I started seeing C5 and C6 SMART warnings.

Not sure what I want to do with the replacement that arrived today. Might go to FS/FT with it.

The 1TB Seagate in my system has been chugging along for almost 5 years!

 

[Elixer]

That's still too low if you ask me. Also, "continuous" is highly speculative. If we are allowed to add them up without non-stop operation, you'll end up with only 300 days / 8 service hours per day. I take it still too low.

So the ST3000DM001 is 100% not meant to be deployed in a storage pod. The storage pod means 24/7 non-stop operation. Those guys are using this model of hdd the wrong way. It means that saying that this particular model is unreliable based on their data is totally wrong.

2400hours = 100 days. After only one year of non-stop service, the storage pod would have turned those drives into lemons. In fact, it can be considered a miracle if some of the ST3000DM001's lasted more than 1 year.

So, the other HDs that they are using also have similar specs. Why is it only 3 TB seagates that have such a high failure rate ? Are they using cheaper parts, and it shows ?

Then, why is it the 4TB ones are doing better ?

Seems the answer is pretty obvious...

 

[Red Squirrel]

Seagate 3 TB NAS drive for $109. Get 'em while they're parked, lol.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...22178392-S1A2C

Holy crap that's tempting... I need 2 3TB drives to expand one of my raid 10's. I think it would be a bad idea to do that with two Seagates though. :awe:

But it says "high drive reliability", it must be true! :awe: