Is seagate quality still bad? or i'm very lucky

[pewpewboom]

brought a new seagate 2tb hard drive failed in second day, then found out the huge shaddy marketing of hdd manufacturer 

got a replacement, its bad and reported for another replacement.

 

The 3rd replacement came, and failed instantly CRC error, clicking sound and unable to initialize, i feel so angry and dumb at the same time.

is seagate quality still bad? Or I'm just very lucky and should buy lottery?

Should i just demand a return and refund?

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by pewpewboom
details

[Tan3l6]

Seagate is BAD.

[Enderman]

I had a 2TB seagate drive start having smart errors after a couple months, but a WD drive that had ben running for 5 years with no errors.

Just my anecdotal evidence, but fwiw I've also read a lot more posts about issues with seagate than with WD on this forum.

[GDRRiley]

segate isn't bad overall, they've had a few messed up models and maybe something about your lot/model may have issues.

I've had WD go for 10 years but I also have segate last 12

[ShortRouter]

16 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

Seagate is BAD.

Funnily enough I have both Seagate and WD drives in my NAS and the oh-so-praised WD RED completely failed on me. Seagate Ironwolf still going strong with zero issues. Old Seagate Barracuda desktop drive served me 7 years without fail and I'm sure the guy I sold it to has no issues aswell. Now I use WD black in my Worksatation and again no issues since 5+ years. What I'm saying is don't generalize like that. There are enterprise drives which are extremely reliable and there are cheap desktop drives which will fail often no matter what manufacturer. WD green are not good HDDs either.

[Tan3l6]

3 minutes ago, ShortRouter said:

Funnily enough I have both Seagate and WD drives in my NAS and the oh-so-praised WD RED completely failed on me. Seagate Ironwolf still going strong with zero issues. Old Seagate Barracuda desktop drive served me 7 years without fail and I'm sure the guy I sold it to has no issues aswell. What I'm saying is don't generalize like that. There are enterprise drives which are extremely reliable and there are cheap desktop drives which will fail often no matter what manufacturer. WD green are not good HDDs either.

Yeah, I just stay away from Seagate for a while now, as the statistics still tend to favour Seagate for failure.

It might be just statistics that can lie, but i look articles like that and stay away:

https://www.eteknix.com/3tb-seagate-hard-drives-have-43-failure-rate/

Not the latest info though.

[ShortRouter]

Hard drives either fail right at the beginning or when they get really old. In-between failures are quite rare. My experience with various Seagate drives has been stellar.

[pewpewboom]

@ShortRouter
I do have western digital and seagate drives, infact if you look at my first thread, i have like 8 drives, 1 SSD and 7HDD, but i do agree that drives do fail as when they age

cause i do had wd drive fail on me before and the same with seagate, since i'm no IT expert in HDD nor experience in tech support industry i won't say which brand is better.

 

But for current experience, seagate send me 2 bad drives, its kinda unacceptable

right now i just want to bang my head agnist the wall and ask WHY? SEAGATE HOW DO THAT HAPPENED?

 

[GDRRiley]

9 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

It might be just statistics that can lie, but i look articles like that and stay away:

https://www.eteknix.com/3tb-seagate-hard-drives-have-43-failure-rate/

Not the latest info though.

so there are some things to consider. those were a model that didn't do great

they weren't used in a desktop but in racks of 45

here is the 2020 data

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2020/

[GDRRiley]

Just now, pewpewboom said:

SEAGATE HOW DO THAT HAPPENED?

bad batch? are all dated around the same day

[Pa1yn]

3 hours ago, pewpewboom said:

brought a new seagate 2tb hard drive failed in second day, then found out the huge shaddy marketing of hdd manufacturer 

got a replacement, its bad and reported for another replacement.

 

The 3rd replacement came, and failed instantly CRC error, clicking sound and unable to initialize, i feel so angry and dumb at the same time.

is seagate quality still bad? Or I'm just very lucky and should buy lottery?

Should i just demand a return and refund?

 

 

 

 

It's a recertified drive, of course it'll have a higher chance of failure

[Oshino Shinobu]

15 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

Yeah, I just stay away from Seagate for a while now, as the statistics still tend to favour Seagate for failure.

It might be just statistics that can lie, but i look articles like that and stay away:

https://www.eteknix.com/3tb-seagate-hard-drives-have-43-failure-rate/

Not the latest info though.

You should totally disregard Backblaze's "reliability" statistics. 

 

They are completely invalid and cannot be relied upon. If you trust those statistics, just don't buy from any HDD manufacturers because they all have completely unacceptable failure rates in their reports. 

 

5 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

so there are some things to consider. those were a model that didn't do great

they weren't used in a desktop but in racks of 45

here is the 2020 data

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2020/

Their data means nothing for measuring the actual reliability of the drives. Among many issues, they shuck the cheapest drives they can find and shove them in datacentre environments, then report that as reliability statistics. 

 

I'm glad they actually release their data, but really wish they, and others, would stop portraying it as meaningful for consumers in any way. 

 

I've made some really long posts in the past of why their data should be pretty much entirely disregarded/ If you search my username with Backblaze you'll probably come across some. 

 

 

EDIT: Seagate have had some shocking models in the past. Most notably a 3TB and 1.5TB model a few years back, but that issue has long since been resolved. Pretty much all of Seagate's bad rep comes from Backblaze's "reliability" reports from a specific year when they used a ton of the problematic Seagate desktop drives in their datacentres. Bear in mind, in the same report, WD have something like a 10% failure rate, which would be completely unacceptable, and even the 3% or so failure rate from HGST would have long put the company out of business or given them a bad rep if it were even remotely accurate. 

[ShortRouter]

To me what WD did with their RED series is unacceptable: https://blocksandfiles.com/2020/04/14/wd-red-nas-drives-shingled-magnetic-recording/

To each their own, if you made such bad experience with Seagate you are unlikely to buy another Seagate drive. No one holding you back to go for another brand. Demand a refund since replacements were still faulty.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, Oshino Shinobu said:

They are completely invalid and cannot be relied upon. If you trust those statistics, just don't buy from any HDD manufacturers because they all have completely unacceptable failure rates in their reports. 

 

Their data means nothing for measuring the actual reliability of the drives. Among many issues, they shuck the cheapest drives they can find and shove them in datacentre environments, then report that as reliability statistics.

I was agreeing it shouldn't be used but at least if your going to do look at 5 year old data.

 

they have done that from time to time but if you look at the current spread most are proper enterprise drives

[pewpewboom]

2 minutes ago, ShortRouter said:

To me what WD did with their RED series is unacceptable: https://blocksandfiles.com/2020/04/14/wd-red-nas-drives-shingled-magnetic-recording/

To each their own, if you made such bad experience with Seagate you are unlikely to buy another Seagate drive. No one holding you back to go for another brand.

Well its the same for seagate and toshiba too they should be upfront about the product spec,

i guess this is partially my fault for not doing research.

 

YUP you are right, driven by anger i just brought a samsung 4tb SSD, hope that i'm not lucky that it failed on me too.

But then again, I can't just ignore the money i spend on this HDD, its hard earn money !!!

 

 

[Void Master]

12 minutes ago, GougedKirby522 said:

is seagate quality still bad? Or I'm just very lucky and should buy lottery?

Your luck is better than mine, i never had a seagate HDD last me for more than 6 months, on the other hand i only had 1 WD hard drive go faulty on me, and that a 12 year old laptop HDD that still works, but shows caution in SMART status.

That's why i only and only buy WD HDDs for myself.

[Oshino Shinobu]

14 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

I was agreeing it shouldn't be used but at least if your going to do look at 5 year old data.

 

they have done that from time to time but if you look at the current spread most are proper enterprise drives

To be honest, I have no issue with their (maybe old) business model of getting the cheapest drives they can and just replacing them when they fail. 

 

AFAIK, Backblaze is reliable in terms of not losing data which is really the only important thing as a consumer from a data host, even if they're burning through drives.

 

I just take issue how they repeatedly release their "reliability" stats without making it clear how useless the data is for consumers. They've gotten better over the years of not outright labelling them as reliability stats but they still don't point out their issues with inconsistency and lack of variable control. Their failure rates seem to have dropped significantly, no doubt in part to not shucking external drives anymore but I imagine they've moved most of their drives to racks that actually have vibration dampening unlike in the past.

 

[GDRRiley]

Just now, Oshino Shinobu said:

 they're moved most of their drives to racks that actually have vibration dampening unlike in the past.

they are mostly in pod 6.0 which are very similar to 45 drive units.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/open-source-data-storage-server/

Spoiler

 

[Oshino Shinobu]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

they are mostly in pod 6.0 which are very similar to 45 drive units.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/open-source-data-storage-server/

  Hide contents

 

Yep, that should play a big part. It's good that they're continuing to update it. 

 

I believe the problematic Seagate drives were when they were still mostly using revisions 1 and 2, before anti-vibration features were standard for the majority of their storage. 

[LastLivingSouls]

In my experience, HDD failure is a complete unit-to-unit crapshoot.  I buy whatever brand in my price per GB range and then cross my fingers for the first month.

[Spindel]

For me this is a really interesting thread to read. 

 

I've not touched a Seagate drive in about 20 years because of my experience with them back in the late 90ies early 00s. 

The reasons I don't like them was that when I last used one they ran really hot and the only brand that has failed on me (if we don't count the WD I dropped on the floor) is Seagate. The same can be said about my friends. During my years I have had drives by: Seagate, Toshiba, Hitachi, Samsung and WD. 

 

Now days if I get a mechanical drive (only have it in my NAS) I only shop for WD, because of my 20 year old bias based on really anecdotal experiences.