Avatar
posted 26 days ago by
ragingwookiee
Senior Member - 7K

Posted with ToGo

Seagate 4TB BarraCuda SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache 3.5-Inch Internal Hard Drive
$99.99
https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-BarraCuda-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST4000DM005/dp/B01LNJBA50


2983 Views
11 Comments
Add Comment
Moderator Comment: This thread is mirrored to these forums: MOBILE, LAPTOPS, AND COMPUTERS, HOT DEALS. — Jun. 25, 2017 @ 9:37am
rated:
OK, I give -- two people have given this red. Why?

These seem like good drives, and what seems to be one of the best prices (the best camelcamelcamel shows).

Am I missing something? I know Seagate had a serious issue with one specific 3TB drive, but this drive doesn't seem to have similar issues. Are people just upset about the other drive, or is there more to the red?

rated:
I wondered the same thing about the red, and did some light research.
Pros: The drive is big, and about $28 cheaper than at Microcenter - so that tells you the price is good.
(potential) Cons: But reading the Amazon reviews, there are some complaints about the drive dying and Seagate Customer Service / Tech Support not being too helpful, and one reviewer said the drive wasn't performing well, so he did a firmware update, which was a nightmare.

Still, if I needed a drive I may go for the gamble - Wanted to buy it, but money is tight, so I'm trying to hold back. I'm remaining neutral at the moment (no red from me).

@ ragingwookie - Were you in Star Wars, or did they black list you due to a behavioral problem?

rated:
I didn't give red...but fwiw I will never again do segate, even if it's free.
Once is fluke, twice perhaps a bad batch...but 5 drives all seagate dying, then there is an issue. Segate, only if you don't care about time and data loss.

rated:
shyboi said:   I didn't give red...but fwiw I will never again do segate, even if it's free.
Once is fluke, twice perhaps a bad batch...but 5 drives all seagate dying, then there is an issue. Segate, only if you don't care about time and data loss.
 


Thank you for helping me understand.

Were all 5 of them Seagate 3TB ST3000DM001? If so, that is (unfortunately) to be expected (there was apparently a large batch of drives that had an extraordinarily high rate of failure). That was circa 2011-2012, shortly after the Thailand floods caused hard drive prices to skyrocket, and Seagate tried using 3 denser platters rather than 4-5 less dense platters. And I can certainly see why you would choose to avoid Seagate drives given the circumstances.

Those that gave red, though, were probably giving red to Seagate in general (rather than the drives in question).

The BackBlaze hard drive data at https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-rates-q1-2017/ is a good source for reliability of hard drives. Lifetime failure rates are higher than average for Seagate, but there are a number of other brands with models with above-average rates as well.

Personally, I just bought two of these that I am going to put in a hard drive enclosure with RAID1 (where data is stored on both; if one drive fails, I just put another drive in). So for my usage, a 3% failure rate versus 2% is acceptable (although obviously what you encountered was a much, much higher failure rate).
 

rated:
spamfree5 said:   OK, I give -- two people have given this red. Why?

These seem like good drives, and what seems to be one of the best prices (the best camelcamelcamel shows).

Am I missing something? I know Seagate had a serious issue with one specific 3TB drive, but this drive doesn't seem to have similar issues. Are people just upset about the other drive, or is there more to the red?

  The BackBlaze report says that the Seagate 4TB is the worst drive to own at this time.

rated:
Man I remember way back in the day when WD was trash and Seagate was the only drive in town for quality. My how things have changed...especially since I have a WD drive in my system

rated:
Antonius66 said:   Man I remember way back in the day when WD was trash and Seagate was the only drive in town for quality. My how things have changed...especially since I have a WD drive in my system
  Same here . . . we were all about the Seagate drives for years and the older ones seemed to last forever. As we added new drives, especially as larger drives got cheaper, the quality of the Seagate drives seemed to go down. After a couple of them failed, we started looking at reviews and test scores and noticed that the WD drives, which were always fine for us just not the ones we normally chose, seemed to be maintaining their quality/ratings while people were losing confidence in the Seagates. It's too bad . . this is a nice price for a large drive. (Though, because of audio stuff we have to have at least 7200RPM.)
 

rated:
forbin4040 said:     The BackBlaze report says that the Seagate 4TB is the worst drive to own at this time.
 

  No.

The BackBlaze report (URL in my previous post) shows that for January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017, of 17 different drive types BackBlaze used, ~0.8% failed (3.27% annualized). That *is* the worst of those 17 different drive types. But the Seagate ST4000DM000 accounted for 42% of their drives. The data doesn't show when they were placed in service, for example. It could be comparing 5-year-old Seagates with 1-year-old drives from another company.

So you need to look further down, at the lifetime stats, or something like https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FY-201... which shows the failure rates in 2016 (spoiler: HGST 0.60%, Toshiba 1.27%, Seagate 2.65%, WDC 3.88%).

It really boils down to the cost of failure. Back when I was primarily "no backup", the cost of failure was extremely high (imagine your copies of tax returns, bank statements, E-mails, etc. getting lost). If you do occasional backups, the cost is a lot less (but still reasonably high, especially with the "unknown" of what may have been lost). Even RAID as I will be doing has a cost of failure (the cost of a replacement drive or hassle if under warranty, the chance of loss if the other drive fails before the data gets copied over, my time to do this, etc.).

Of course now I'm downloading the BackBlaze data, and probably going to pour too many hours into analyzing it...

 

rated:
spamfree5 said:   
forbin4040 said:     The BackBlaze report says that the Seagate 4TB is the worst drive to own at this time.
  No.

The BackBlaze report (URL in my previous post) shows that for January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017, of 17 different drive types BackBlaze used, ~0.8% failed (3.27% annualized). That *is* the worst of those 17 different drive types. But the Seagate ST4000DM000 accounted for 42% of their drives. The data doesn't show when they were placed in service, for example. It could be comparing 5-year-old Seagates with 1-year-old drives from another company.

So you need to look further down, at the lifetime stats, or something like https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FY-2016-Failure-Rates-by-MFG.jpg which shows the failure rates in 2016 (spoiler: HGST 0.60%, Toshiba 1.27%, Seagate 2.65%, WDC 3.88%).

It really boils down to the cost of failure. Back when I was primarily "no backup", the cost of failure was extremely high (imagine your copies of tax returns, bank statements, E-mails, etc. getting lost). If you do occasional backups, the cost is a lot less (but still reasonably high, especially with the "unknown" of what may have been lost). Even RAID as I will be doing has a cost of failure (the cost of a replacement drive or hassle if under warranty, the chance of loss if the other drive fails before the data gets copied over, my time to do this, etc.).

Of course now I'm downloading the BackBlaze data, and probably going to pour too many hours into analyzing it...

 

  So how I read it is

If you buy a 4TB Seagate (ST4000DX00) in the last 4 Months you have a 35% chance of it failing
If you buy a bunch of 4TB Seagates (ST4000DX00) for 4 over Years, you have a 9% chance of it failing

This means to me, don't buy a NEW Seagate 4TB drive (Especially if it's a ST4000DX00 Series)

Your post implies that since Seagate has been making good drives for 4 years you should keep buying them.  My post implies don't buy this drive NOW.

rated:
forbin4040 said:     So how I read it is

If you buy a 4TB Seagate (ST4000DX00) in the last 4 Months you have a 35% chance of it failing
If you buy a bunch of 4TB Seagates (ST4000DX00) for 4 over Years, you have a 9% chance of it failing

This means to me, don't buy a NEW Seagate 4TB drive (Especially if it's a ST4000DX00 Series)

Your post implies that since Seagate has been making good drives for 4 years you should keep buying them.  My post implies don't buy this drive NOW.
 


Not quite right.

If you have a possibly 5-year-old 4TB Seagate (ST4000DX000), and used it as BackBlaze does, it would have a 35% chance of failing within a year. But, BackBlaze stated "we only have a 170 drives of this particular drive model, so the failure rate is not statistically significant". The 9.8% lifetime failure rate is much more meaningful here. And remember, that's a "bad drive" -- one that should be avoided.

If you pick the DM over the DX (one person wrote years ago "DM drives are MUCH cooler, by as much as 39%!!!"), you'll get that 9.8% down to 3.1%.

So in this case, it isn't really 35% or 9.8%, it's a 3.1% annual failure rate. That's certainly a higher than average, but again, depending on the usage, likely acceptable. If you choose to use a hard drive that is faster and hotter, that's your decision -- and you take your chances.

I'm delving into the data, and going to see if I can get more useful numbers (e.g. average age of failure, and whether newer models are more/less reliable than old ones). It may not lead anywhere, but who knows?
 

rated:
Semi-OT: I have different drive makes, capacities, and ages in my Drobo 3.

250GB Seagate (it was laying around), 1TB WD, 2TB WD (and those two are even different series, one is 5400 and one is 7200 IIRC), and a HGST 2TB.

That gives me 2.37TB of data. (BeyondRAID) they call it. 2TB of that is Time Machine. The Drobo is online sometimes and sometimes not. Irregular, external, redundant backups.

I have another 3TB in my Mac Pro that is online all the time that is Time Machine. At some point I'll probably shuffle this to the Drobo.

You can also configure it to be fault tolerant of a two drive failure.

IIRC it also has NVRAM for saving on the fly data.

Yeah, it's not a perfect solution, but little is especially non-cloud which has it's own issues.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


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.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017