Seagate ST3000DM001 reliable?

[TomH]

Hi guys so my PC was upgraded from a pre built one I got bought for my birthday a year ago and it came with a Seagate ST3000DM001 3TB hard drive installed which I've kept since. I was just wondering how reliable this drive is and whether I should consider saving up for a more reliable drive like a WD blue. I have a Samsung 850 evo 250gb in addition and I don't store many important files on the PC as I mainly use it for gaming and back up many files on drop box. With this in mind would it just be best to put important files on the SSD?

 

Thank you for your time, I appreciate any replies ?

[Luc401]

No that seagate drive is fine.. Just make sure you are doing backups of your important files to another drive external or whatever.

[TomH]

1 minute ago, Luc401 said:

No that seagate drive is fine.. Just make sure you are doing backups of your important files to another drive external or whatever.

Awesome thank you

[Xescure]

I've been using the 2TB version of that drive for a long time, and I didn't hvae problems with that. If you are scared of losing your files, backup them, or use RAID 1.

[theklax]

12 minutes ago, h4ns0n said:

Hi guys so my PC was upgraded from a pre built one I got bought for my birthday a year ago and it came with a Seagate ST3000DM001 3TB hard drive installed which I've kept since. I was just wondering how reliable this drive is and whether I should consider saving up for a more reliable drive like a WD blue. I have a Samsung 850 evo 250gb in addition and I don't store many important files on the PC as I mainly use it for gaming and back up many files on drop box. With this in mind would it just be best to put important files on the SSD?

 

Thank you for your time, I appreciate any replies ?

I would not purchase this drive personally.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

 

It has higher than acceptable failure rates, honestly though, If you don't mind losing the data I'd go ahead. (steam downloads etc)

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

1 hour ago, Luc401 said:

No that seagate drive is fine

Depends on the year of manufacture.  The new ones may be okay, but if it's a 2011-2012 example I'd stay well clear.  The ST3000DM001s of that time period are the ones famous for having a 30+% annual failure rate. 

 

And for anyone claiming that Backblaze was wrong, Wendell had the exact same results and even gave up on RMA-ing them even though they were still under warranty.

Timestamped to 46:32

 

 

There's also someone on the forum (forgot the name ... EDIT: Turns out it was AnonymousGuy) who had 20 or so of those drives in Raid60 in his NAS.  He couldn't swap them out fast enough to keep up with the pace at which they were dying, which eventually caused the array to fail. 

 

 

1 hour ago, h4ns0n said:

I was just wondering how reliable this drive is and whether I should consider saving up for a more reliable drive like a WD blue.

The WD would be the better option for sure.  Otherwise the SSD should be fine, those are pretty reliable nowadays, more so than HDDs actually.

 

[AnonymousGuy]

Under no circumstance should you use that drive model number.  I put 24 into service and had them failing so fast I couldn't even replace them quick enough with the shipping time.  Refurbs were even worse that I got back and had probably a 50% rate of dying within the first 10 seconds under load.  Seagate sucks massive cock.  Backblaze and the tidal wave of negative Newegg reviews should be a hint that drive has critical design flaws.

 

And lol ^ this guy remembered my story.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

58 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

And lol ^ this guy remembered my story.

Of course I do, I watched it unfold back then.

 

@ Anyone defending the 3TB Seagates : you may want to read the post below and Anonymousguy's posts on the next 2 pages of that thread.  Starts halfway page 51, lasts until nearly halfway of page 53.  Also note Handruin's 3 posts shortly after AnonymousGuy starts having problems.

 

[TomH]

3 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

Depends on the year of manufacture.  The new ones may be okay, but if it's a 2011-2012 example I'd stay well clear.  The ST3000DM001s of that time period are the ones famous for having a 30+% annual failure rate. 

 

And for anyone claiming that Backblaze was wrong, Wendell had the exact same results and even gave up on RMA-ing them even though they were still under warranty.

Timestamped to 46:32

 

 

There's also someone on the forum (forgot the name ... EDIT: Turns out it was AnonymousGuy) who had 20 or so of those drives in Raid60 in his NAS.  He couldn't swap them out fast enough to keep up with the pace at which they were dying, which eventually caused the array to fail. 

 

 

The WD would be the better option for sure.  Otherwise the SSD should be fine, those are pretty reliable nowadays, more so than HDDs actually.

 

The DOM on the drive says 24th January 2016

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

2 hours ago, h4ns0n said:

The DOM on the drive says 24th January 2016

If you already have it, you might as well use it.  Just make sure you back everything up on a regular basis. 

The new ones may be good (or may still be bad, I really have no idea).  I am still amazed that they are still making them under the same model number.  If I were a manufacturer, the first thing I'd do after a PR nightmare such as the DM001 would be to fix whatever is wrong and sell the improved model under a new model number (DM002 for example).

[AnonymousGuy]

49 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

If you already have it, you might as well use it.  Just make sure you back everything up on a regular basis. 

The new ones may be good (or may still be bad, I really have no idea).  I am still amazed that they are still making them under the same model number.  If I were a manufacturer, the first thing I'd do after a PR nightmare such as the DM001 would be to fix whatever is wrong and sell the improved model under a new model number (DM002 for example).

They did have a couple model numbers for what I believe is the same shitty drive with different firmwares.  DM0002 and VM001 or something they claim is "for NAS".  I wouldn't trust any of it.

 

Date mfg. and country of origin didn't make a difference for me.  I had 2013 drives, 2015 drives, Thailand, China, etc and they all sucked.

 

Bonus content: my server is now about 50% HGST Deskstar / Deskstar NAS + WD Red Pro's.  Failure rates are down to about 1 every 2-3 months and I'd say the WD drives maybe have a slight edge but it's very close.  WD has a cross shipping RMA that makes trading out failed drives easier than HGST where you have to send them the drive first.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

11 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Bonus content: my server is now about 50% HGST Deskstar / Deskstar NAS + WD Red Pro's.  Failure rates are down to about 1 every 2-3 months and I'd say the WD drives maybe have a slight edge but it's very close.  WD has a cross shipping RMA that makes trading out failed drives easier than HGST where you have to send them the drive first.

I'm still running the same 8 WD Reds that I put in my NAS when I built it in the summer of 2015.  Had some CRC errors on one drive every couple of boots (I shut mine down when I'm away from home for more than 24h) a while ago, but that started right after I took the NAS outside to blow the dust out of it.  I re-seated the data cable on that drive 2 months ago and I haven't seen an error since.

 

So you had it with 2015 drives too?   Damn! 

@h4ns0n VERY regular backups then. 

[demonix00]

12 hours ago, theklax said:

I would not purchase this drive personally.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

 

It has higher than acceptable failure rates, honestly though, If you don't mind losing the data I'd go ahead. (steam downloads etc)

Except their results come from them being run in SERVERS 24/7 which they're not designed for and those results shouldn't even be trusted.

[theklax]

11 hours ago, demonix00 said:

Except their results come from them being run in SERVERS 24/7 which they're not designed for and those results shouldn't even be trusted.

True, but given the choice why not pick a more reliable drive? For the negligible price difference why not pick something more reliable. Why take the slightly higher risk?

 

Moreover, one of the basic principles for testing computer hardware is that you endeavor to test it in the worst case scenario. (consider CPU/GPU benchmarks)