Jump to content
Covecube Inc.
  • 0
PetabytesPlease

Drive Pool Compatability with Seatage Drives

Question

Let me make clear that i am NOT blaming stable bit for any of these issues; the drives in question ST3000DM001-9YN166, have been a headache from the start but am wondering how these drives could "interact" with stable bit to cause drive issues; after a few days of creating a pool with 3x3TB drives the first drive reported just "9% health" and "The drive 336 bad sectors during its self test" according to Hard disk sentinel. It also seems that this issue is not specific to me...

https://homeservershow.com/forums/topic/8890-seagate-st3000dm001-data-corruption/

So what are my options; don't pool the ST3000DM001 drives; but how can we be sure that this type of "conflict" doesn't occur with other drive types and sizes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Those are exactly the same drives I had, and I had 20 of them! They were horrible for me. I have 0 left. Out of the 20, I maybe pulled 3 from the system that didn't at least have SMART warnings. Over the years, I submitted RMA's and over time, the RMA's started to have problems. Since then, I have been buying Toshiba 3TB and HGST 6TB NAS drives and have never had to RMA one. They have been running perfectly with no issues whatsoever. Because of my experience, I will probably never buy a Seagate desktop drive again. I would assume that their Enterprise drives are still solid though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@otispresley Same. I had 16 of them.  a couple still worked, but I removed them anyways.  :(

 

18 hours ago, PetabytesPlease said:

So what are my options; don't pool the ST3000DM001 drives; but how can we be sure that this type of "conflict" doesn't occur with other drive types and sizes

Don't use the drives, for any data. Period.  RMA the drives if they're under warranty... or ... trash them.  

To be blunt, this line of drives is VERY bad. It's highly prone to failure.  

 

If you must use them.... use them in a secondary pool, and only for redundancy.  And even then .... I wouldn't recommend it for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Throw them in the gutter.

Better yet, toss them through the front window of Seagate HQ. :D 

ST3000DM001 Excessive Failures

Because of these drives (and a few prior issues with Seagate drives) I will never purchase a Seagate product again... 

No reason to when I can get HGST's for the same money..  I haven't had a bad HGST drive yet!  (Out of about 30)

~RF

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Personally, aside from these "D(00)M" drives, I've not had an issue with Seagate drives, really.  I've had more issues with WD drives.

But that's a personal thing.  Any manufacturer is fine (well, it's really Seagate or WDC anymore, unfortunately). 

But just not the ST3000DM001 drives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Very true.

In my old age I tend to vote with my wallet more and it irks me when a multi-million dollar company f#$ks up and offers nothing to the consumers that it shafted.

Though I do understand that Seagate is certainly no Maxtor. :)

I just ain't giving them any more of my $$ on personal principal.

~RF

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I am going to take these drives out of the pool and use them as external disks until i can afford replacements and only boot them when absolutely necessary; my question is how come stable bit "induced" the drive into failing; i now these drives are bad but they were at 80% health and then dropped down to 10% health after a few days in a stable bit pool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, PetabytesPlease said:

my question is how come stable bit "induced" the drive into failing;

Most likely, because the drives weren't doing anything before.

StableBit DrivePool is very I/O intensive, especially on first add.  Measuring the existing contents is, and could trigger the drive to "find" these issues.  
The same goes for the balancing and duplication features. 

 

The question is, when was the last time that you scanned the entire disk?  If it's been a while, then that would really be why.  The issues likely developed prior to this, and didn't show up until you started really using the disks (eg, putting a load on them). 

 

Shamelessly, that's why we recommend StableBit Scanner along with StableBit DrivePool. Or even by itself.  The entire point of the software is preventative maintenance.  It scans the disk once a month, and constantly monitors the SMART data for issues.  If may have detected the issues earlier. 
And if will cause the pool to evacuate the contents of a disk, if unreadable sectors are found (and optionally, if SMART warnings occur). 

 

 

3 hours ago, PetabytesPlease said:

now these drives are bad but they were at 80% health and then dropped down to 10% health after a few days in a stable bit pool

You're using Hard Drive Sentinel, right? 
These values are based on detected issues and values. 

What you describe may not have been detected without a heavy load or tests. 

Which is one of the reasons i hate the "healthy" indicator in software such as this.  it's misleading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...