It has been my experience that Seagate, and ONLY Seagate drives eventually suffer from "Sticktion".   BBS runners from back in the day are WELL aware of this phenomenon.
Further, PERSONALLY, I've had VERY bad luck with Seagate.   They didn't fail gracefully, with warning.  Boot today, Tits Up tomorrow.

Unfortunately maybe, (I) just replaced MY primary data drive with a high-end Hitachi 4 TB.  I replace this drive every 4 Years MAX, even if it appears to work fine.
The Hitachi was purchased because I have them in a some laptops and they have performed quite well.

MY favorite has long been Maxtor but I'm SURE someone will say they suck too. Them, and nearly every other too.   You know the saying: "Opinions are like....  Everyone has one" The topic, is quite subjective.   Like everything, the top dog never remains static so for ME it may be time to re-evaluate also. Look at HP printers and Brother.  HP was top, NOW I think Brother is WAYYY better.

If anyone here on the list works in a data center.  They would know first person about drive deaths, but being a data center, they'll more than likely use only enterprise class drives, which as we all know are levels above the stuff in a typical home system.  Like everything, cars, blenders, etc,  there are certain models from each manufacturer that are garbage. (I) would tend to take advise from someone who uses NON-enterprise drives over years and en-mass.  If anyone here on the list qualifies, I TOO would like to hear what you have to say since you are literally on the front-lines.






On 10/18/2014 07:30 AM, Keith Smith wrote:
Sorry to hear Seagate is not as good as Hitachi.  As I recall, there was a discussion on this list about who was the best and I think Hitachi took a lot of hits.  I think Dell puts Seagate drives in their boxes.

What manufacture makes the best today?




On 2014-10-17 22:05, Brian Cluff wrote:
Seagate has been cranking out such bad drives lately, I think I would
rather have a used hitachi than a new seagate.

Brian Cluff

On 10/17/2014 08:43 AM, techlists@phpcoderusa.com wrote:

If you have credible evidence that Seagate is selling used Hitachi
drives as new and under their label I'm sure your State Attorney General
would like to hear from you.




On 2014-10-17 10:08, George Toft wrote:
How many [thousand] hours on the drive?  I think you're gambling if
you have more than 26,000 hours (3 years) and ESPECIALLY if it's
really a Hitachi drive.  Seagate bought Hitachi recently, and from
what I've seen, are selling used Hitachi drives as "new" Seagate
drives - check the model number and the run hours!

Hard drives are killing me this year - I've spent over 80 hours in
rework because of failed drives - especially with Seatachi drives (see
above).  80 hours of rework at no pay is a painful lesson.

Regards,

George Toft

On 9/11/2014 4:06 PM, parabellum7@yahoo.com wrote:
Greetings!


I have a 500GB Seagate ST3500312CS SATA drive salvaged from a
decommissioned DVR. The DVR's OS said SMART status OK. The latest
Seatools disk utility from the Seagate website says the drive is A-OK
(short test, long test, full erase, re-test) no errors found.

However, the Gnome disk utility in Mint 17 says 'Threshold not
exceeded' and 'Disk is OK, 178 bad sectors'.

Some other SMART attributes displayed:

ID1        Read Error Rate: 152141757
ID5      Reallocated Sector Count: 178 sectors
ID187     Reported Uncorrectable Errors: 0 sectors
ID198    Uncorrectable Sector Count: 0 sectors
ID199    UDMA CRC Error Rate: 0


GSmart Control 0.8.7 is reading the same thing, 178 sectors, but also
says it's OK.

running an e2fsck from gparted reports 0 bad blocks.

I've also retested in another machine with different cables to
minimize the possibility of bogus hardware or BIOS issues, but the
results remain the same.

Seagate's website has a FAQ that says their tools should be the final
say as they're designed to work correctly with their drives.

Normally a bad sector or two wouldn't bother me, I have drives that
have been running for years like that. I just keep backups fresh and
check for bad sector growth. A few bad sectors is within spec and
that's why HDD's have a reserved area. Yet somehow 178 sectors seems
like a lot.

Should I trust this drive for anything more than a paperweight?

Should I trust anything with the words 'smart', 'affordable', or
'free' in the name?  ;]


Thanks!


--Kenn
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss


---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss


---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss