this is a crazy deal and lowest ever I have seen a 1.5 tb for. I have heard of some issues with running raid on these drives but everyone else i know that is running it as their main HD has 0 problems.
jiggawhowhere
Senior Member
posted: Jun. 22, 2009 @ 3:14p
csut11 said: That extra 500GB is worthless if the drive fails. I'm amazed that so many people don't understand this.
I agree. I'd hate to have to fill this drive up with my stuff and in 30 days the drive fails.
I'm more worried about the time spent rather than it failing. I'd rather fill it up and not have to worry about getting a replacement.
That extra 500GB is worthless if the drive fails. I'm amazed that so many people don't understand this. I'd imagine many of us have some form of redundancy in place. All drives will fail someday, and I for one will be ready when it happens.
rather than got too excited about the price per GB (it is good) determine your needs and act accordingly. Personally I have invested in 2 x wd eads green drives for backup purposes in a netgear readynas. Runs cooler and has better reviews. If you want a system drive, the caviar black series has very good reviews and can be had for around $90. Having said that, all drive brands will fail. If you read these boards you will know that the seagate 1.5 has its issues. I for one decided not to become another beta tester for seagate on this one.
It's all in the odds ... this version has a higher failure rate than the norm. If you feel it's worth the gamble, restrict it's use via a limited use external / backup drive. You have the immediate advantage of lower cost/GB, and with luck a hour per week spin time will keep your data secure for a year or three.
Seagate 1 TB 7200.12 is a very nice and fast drive for less money. More space on a drive that has a greater chance of letting you down is false economy, if the time it took to gather, create or install that data is worth more than an extra 500GB to you.
What I don't understand is why there are people on this forum who defend Seagate to no end. Every person who posts their personal experience whether old or new immediately gets dismissed for: 1. Making up false information about the firmware 2. Simply not knowing what they are talking about 3. They are bitter trolls driving the market for these drives down It's almost as if you guys work for Seagate and are trying to save their reputation. I personally like to hear these stories(and I thank all the ones that do since it seems that they care for the welfare of others); and obviously the newer ones since I am in the market for a drive. I also would like to say yes all drives do fail but is it more common than others? To think that every model of a drive has more or less the same percentage of failure rate IMO is kind of ridiculous. It wouldn't surprise me if the 7200.12 and 7200.10 is more stable than 7200.11...however, we will really never know unless someone who actually works for Seagate posts the numbers. On a different note for those who actually do apply to the above 3(and I'm sure you know who you are)...this deal is a great price and I'm glad the OP posted it because I'd rather have the option to decide whether it is worth taking the never ending argument of it being a "gamble".
suncityrk
Member
posted: Jun. 22, 2009 @ 6:52p
I bought st315005n1a1as-rk from frys, Dell sells ST31500341AS which is superior? is st315005n1a1as-rk 7200.11 or 7200.12?
4aSong
Member
posted: Jun. 22, 2009 @ 6:57p
So, buying a smaller hard drive is preferable because there is less data lost when it dies?
If that's the case, just buy 15 100GB drives, so you'll lose no more than 100GB at a time when a drive dies.
For those who exercise common sense and back up their data, however, one 1500GB drive is mo' better.
I've owned the 1.5TB 7200.11 since December, and it's been absolutely flawless. As all should do with any data worth keeping, however, I have the important files backed up to other drives.
suncityrk said: I bought st315005n1a1as-rk from frys, Dell sells ST31500341AS which is superior? is st315005n1a1as-rk 7200.11 or 7200.12? They are all 7200.11 based. Frys' is retail version, and Dell's is OEM version.
i8blarg
Member
posted: Jun. 22, 2009 @ 9:30p
grrr... so tempted to buy this. currently running a wd black and one of these in my whs server. i could always use more space. just wish i had more sata spots on my motherboard
sardarji said: I heard this drive runs very hot. You need Vornado Premium 735 Fan to cool down. I heard this drive eats little babies & shoots fire out of its eyes!
4aSong said: So, buying a smaller hard drive is preferable because there is less data lost when it dies?
No buying a hard drive that has better firmware, less platters and that runs cooler, that happens to be smaller, is better than buying the Deathstar drive of 2008
edit:That said at least Dell actually packs their hard drives right, so you might as well get it from them if your not going to get it retail box
mattcham said: Toddler said: If you buy one, you won't be able to update the firmware. All of these drives manufactured since January ship with current firmware.
That is inaccurate information. Even drives from January 20, 2009 had faulty firmware:
I bought my drive on 9/29/2008 paid $190.. mine hasn't had 1 problem and I never ever updated the FIRMWARE.. I don't know what you guys are bitching about.. I am now going to trust it with my very precious data.. or maybe the new one I just ordered..
One thing you should factor in as the truth is.. drives just don't break randomly.. there is no such thing as coincidence.. so what am I really saying when I say that??
key is to set your controller to scavenge for errors after 3 seconds of idle..
ruel24
New Member
posted: Jun. 23, 2009 @ 9:45a
Folks, every manufacturer has had claims of premature drive failures. A few years ago, it was the IBM, now Hatachi, drives. Then, Maxtor, and even WD. I've owned every one of those models, and none of them have ever failed on me. The only problem I've ever encountered with a HDD is a pair of WD drives I own. Neither one of them will accept anything on the mbr. Oh well... They make fine data drives, though.
Drive failure is always a real risk, no matter the manufacturer. This is why we backup!
PsychoChild
Member
posted: Jun. 23, 2009 @ 10:10a
i own 2 of these in two different computer one for about 8 months and another one for about 6 both work flawless i even swapped it out one when I upgraded.
too many fails to take the chance what good is an extra 500mb when the hard drive is crashed and you lost all your data and are dead in the water waiting for a replacement?
theemaster said: I bought my drive on 9/29/2008 paid $190.. mine hasn't had 1 problem and I never ever updated the FIRMWARE.. I don't know what you guys are bitching about.. I am now going to trust it with my very precious data.. or maybe the new one I just ordered..
One thing you should factor in as the truth is.. drives just don't break randomly.. there is no such thing as coincidence.. so what am I really saying when I say that??
Hmm...that your a Idiot ??????
suncityrk
Member
posted: Jun. 23, 2009 @ 2:32p
I clicked Dell from shopdicover but while checking out it showed 3% preferred partner CB, so will I get 5% discover CB or 3%FW or both?
sg678
Member
posted: Jun. 23, 2009 @ 2:47p
Just my 2 cents. Bought this about 2 months back through the Dell deal.
No firmware upgrade needed. yesterday, the drive started to gave up on me. Luckily, I have it setup in RAID. I am not buying these drives again.
I find it wise to RAID large drive data sets anyhow if you think the data is important. I can't really understand having data that isn't important on a large drive to begin with. So if you have a rack mounted case cooling these in a temperature controlled environment in a large raid disk array, they should be fine. That's how my friend runs them where he works. Otherwise I'd stay away from these for standard desktop setups unless I guess you're going to add water block cooling to them. Right now my personal raid has 6 500gb drives in it and it gives me very little trouble, but they aren't seagates anyway so I guess I can't really compare there. I think that I read that my controller card only supports up to 2tb per array anyways. I talked my friend into getting the 7200.12 a bit after they came out and he's running those happily in his HP server. I'm not 100% sure on quality of WD drives, I've had problems with those in the past too but they make a decent green drive from what I have seen so I bought one of those. I think one of my WD drives is dying at home, but it is only 120gb and I may have accidentally tripped the power on it a few times and it might not like me for that.
cstu11 said: That extra 500GB is worthless if the drive fails. I'm amazed that so many people don't understand this.
Wait, so 1.5>1 only when 1.5≠0??? I'm glad there was a mental giant here to elucidate that for us morons; it's pretty far over my head. Hey, I have an even better idea...just buy a 16GB SSD. After all, that extra 1.484TB is worthless if the drive fails.
Seriously, can we just come up with a standard link to post with the text "WARNING: READ THIS BEFORE PURCHASING"? We can choose 1 of 400 or so threads that discuss this. (Poll: raise your hand if you haven't already heard about the problems.) If it gets people to stop repeating themselves, I'd even support a link to an "I lost all my data and will never trust Seagate again because 1. hard drives aren't ever supposed to fail and 2. I don't believe in data redundancy" thread. The redundancy overhead is another reason why every GB counts, by the way.
For the threadcrappers who can't figure out why so many FWers are bored with your broken record blather, it's because it's broken record blather. Instead of discussing the deal or finding ways to make it sweeter, everyone here is now debating whether the drives are sound. Again. And using anecdotal evidence rather than numbers. (If this goes the way of the Deathstar, people will still bring it up when/if Seagate crosses the 25TB mark, the poor blokes.)
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
