Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Seagate 1TB drive problems

Reply
Thread Tools

Seagate 1TB drive problems

 
 
Sir To You
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2009
Be very careful if you have purchased a seagate 1tb 7200.11 drive
recently (model ST31000340AS). Many of these shipped with firmware
SD15 and they are having a very high failure rate.

It is a bios problem, which causes the drive to go into a permanent
busy state rendering it invisible to the BIOS. The only fix is to use
specialised equipment to reset the drive and the problem could still
reoccur.

I just bought 2 of these recently dammit. Basically I am not using
them for now as I cannot afford to lose my data.

Check seagate forums for more info - there are a lot of angry people
out there. Best case scenario is seagate will supply a firmware update
ASAP.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2009
Sir To You wrote:
> Be very careful if you have purchased a seagate 1tb 7200.11 drive
> recently (model ST31000340AS). Many of these shipped with firmware
> SD15 and they are having a very high failure rate.
>
> It is a bios problem, which causes the drive to go into a permanent
> busy state rendering it invisible to the BIOS. The only fix is to use
> specialised equipment to reset the drive and the problem could still
> reoccur.
>
> I just bought 2 of these recently dammit. Basically I am not using
> them for now as I cannot afford to lose my data.
>
> Check seagate forums for more info - there are a lot of angry people
> out there. Best case scenario is seagate will supply a firmware update
> ASAP.


I had a 1 and a 1.5TB die within weeks of new.

Now running 1tb wd drives and they have being months without incident.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2009
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:13:25 +1300, Richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Sir To You wrote:
>> Be very careful if you have purchased a seagate 1tb 7200.11 drive
>> recently (model ST31000340AS). Many of these shipped with firmware
>> SD15 and they are having a very high failure rate.
>>
>> It is a bios problem, which causes the drive to go into a permanent
>> busy state rendering it invisible to the BIOS. The only fix is to use
>> specialised equipment to reset the drive and the problem could still
>> reoccur.
>>
>> I just bought 2 of these recently dammit. Basically I am not using
>> them for now as I cannot afford to lose my data.
>>
>> Check seagate forums for more info - there are a lot of angry people
>> out there. Best case scenario is seagate will supply a firmware update
>> ASAP.

>
>I had a 1 and a 1.5TB die within weeks of new.
>
>Now running 1tb wd drives and they have being months without incident.


I have a 1 Tbyte (SD31000340AS) and a 500 Mbyte (SD3500320AS) both
running SD15. The 500 Mbyte is a replacement for one that died at
about 6 weeks. Both of these drives have been fine for months now
(SMART reported power on times of 264 days and 213 days respectively).
They are very fast drives - truly impressive performance compared to
the Seagate IDE drives I was using before then.

I also recently got a 1.5 Tbyte SD31500341AS, and its write speed is
less than one quarter of what it should be. So it is going back as
soon as its forward replacement arrives on Monday (they are out of
stock at the moment). It is running CC1G firmware, which is also
reported to have problems. The main reported problem is that if you
issue a flush cache command, it takes over 30 s to respond, and lots
of operating systems will timeout well before that. Let alone the
impact on performance of a 30 s delay. But that is not the problem I
am seeing, as far as I can tell. The read speed is fine, just like
the other two drives, but the write speed is terrible, like a DVD
writer instead of a new hard drive. It is possible that this is the
same problem if Vista SP1 is issuing cache flush commands for some
reason. Anyway, the replacement drive will be from a new shipment, so
I can hope it might have the newer CC1H firmware.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2009
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Stephen Worthington
wrote:

> The main reported problem is that if you issue a flush cache command, it
> takes over 30 s to respond ...


Having cache on a hard drive is a stupid idea. It's putting RAM on the wrong
side of a slow interface.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2009
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:45:44 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Stephen Worthington
>wrote:
>
>> The main reported problem is that if you issue a flush cache command, it
>> takes over 30 s to respond ...

>
>Having cache on a hard drive is a stupid idea. It's putting RAM on the wrong
>side of a slow interface.


It allows the drive to reorganise the head movements to reduce how far
it has to move them, and to queue commands. Of course, the operating
system should already be doing that.

My practical experience says that drives with bigger on-board cache do
actually perform better, under Windows and OS/2. I can not say yet
for Linux.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Squiggle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2009
Richard wrote:
> Sir To You wrote:
>> Be very careful if you have purchased a seagate 1tb 7200.11 drive
>> recently (model ST31000340AS). Many of these shipped with firmware
>> SD15 and they are having a very high failure rate.
>>
>> It is a bios problem, which causes the drive to go into a permanent
>> busy state rendering it invisible to the BIOS. The only fix is to use
>> specialised equipment to reset the drive and the problem could still
>> reoccur.
>>
>> I just bought 2 of these recently dammit. Basically I am not using
>> them for now as I cannot afford to lose my data.
>>
>> Check seagate forums for more info - there are a lot of angry people
>> out there. Best case scenario is seagate will supply a firmware update
>> ASAP.

>
> I had a 1 and a 1.5TB die within weeks of new.
>
> Now running 1tb wd drives and they have being months without incident.
>


Picked up the replacement for the 750GB 7200.11 that failed over the
xmas period yesterday, same firmware (SD15) so i'm not exactly
optimistic about it lasting. Plan to work it as hard as I can for the
next few weeks by repeatedly copying data from the other drive until its
full and reformatting and starting again. First sign of trouble and back
it goes to be replaced with a non-seagate/maxtor drive.

Has anybody in here been using the samsung spinpoint drives? What are
your thoughts on them?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2009
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Stephen Worthington
wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:45:44 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Stephen
>>Worthington wrote:
>>
>>> The main reported problem is that if you issue a flush cache command, it
>>> takes over 30 s to respond ...

>>
>>Having cache on a hard drive is a stupid idea. It's putting RAM on the
>>wrong side of a slow interface.

>
> It allows the drive to reorganise the head movements to reduce how far
> it has to move them, and to queue commands. Of course, the operating
> system should already be doing that.


Precisely.

> My practical experience says that drives with bigger on-board cache do
> actually perform better, under Windows and OS/2. I can not say yet
> for Linux.


I'd be surprised if you noticed any difference under a reasonably-written
operating system.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2009
Stephen Worthington wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:13:25 +1300, Richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Sir To You wrote:
>>> Be very careful if you have purchased a seagate 1tb 7200.11 drive
>>> recently (model ST31000340AS). Many of these shipped with firmware
>>> SD15 and they are having a very high failure rate.
>>>
>>> It is a bios problem, which causes the drive to go into a permanent
>>> busy state rendering it invisible to the BIOS. The only fix is to use
>>> specialised equipment to reset the drive and the problem could still
>>> reoccur.
>>>
>>> I just bought 2 of these recently dammit. Basically I am not using
>>> them for now as I cannot afford to lose my data.
>>>
>>> Check seagate forums for more info - there are a lot of angry people
>>> out there. Best case scenario is seagate will supply a firmware update
>>> ASAP.

>> I had a 1 and a 1.5TB die within weeks of new.
>>
>> Now running 1tb wd drives and they have being months without incident.

>
> I have a 1 Tbyte (SD31000340AS) and a 500 Mbyte (SD3500320AS) both
> running SD15. The 500 Mbyte is a replacement for one that died at
> about 6 weeks. Both of these drives have been fine for months now
> (SMART reported power on times of 264 days and 213 days respectively).
> They are very fast drives - truly impressive performance compared to
> the Seagate IDE drives I was using before then.
>
> I also recently got a 1.5 Tbyte SD31500341AS, and its write speed is
> less than one quarter of what it should be. So it is going back as
> soon as its forward replacement arrives on Monday (they are out of
> stock at the moment). It is running CC1G firmware, which is also
> reported to have problems. The main reported problem is that if you
> issue a flush cache command, it takes over 30 s to respond, and lots
> of operating systems will timeout well before that. Let alone the
> impact on performance of a 30 s delay. But that is not the problem I
> am seeing, as far as I can tell. The read speed is fine, just like
> the other two drives, but the write speed is terrible, like a DVD
> writer instead of a new hard drive. It is possible that this is the
> same problem if Vista SP1 is issuing cache flush commands for some
> reason. Anyway, the replacement drive will be from a new shipment, so
> I can hope it might have the newer CC1H firmware.


Could be what I was seeing - basically windows would declare the drive
dead often - disabling and reenabling the controller it was on would
bring them back for a while.

I even went and got a new PCI card because I thought it might have being
related to using a sata 150 controller on them, but it was no better.

They were fine for the initial copy of stuff over and for playing stuff
off, its only when I started wanting to organize things that they both
started acting up.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2009
On Jan 15, 11:49*pm, Stephen Worthington
<(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:45:44 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> >Having cache on a hard drive is a stupid idea.


Yeah, another case where the armchair critic knows better than the
rest of the industry.

> >It's putting RAM on the wrong side of a slow interface.


How so? The speed of the SATA2 bus and disk cache far outstrip the
disks speed. That's the opposite effect of putting your RAM on a
slower interface.

>
> It allows the drive to reorganise the head movements to reduce how far
> it has to move them, and to queue commands. *Of course, the operating
> system should already be doing that.


The thing is the OS doesn't really know enough about the low level
implementation details and geometry of the device to do that stuff any
more.

And I think that abstraction is a good thing. I'd rather keep the OS
interface simple (well simpler) and the CPU free from all those
optimisations as well as avoiding the potential for doing it
suboptimally or even plain wrong when new devices or device types (eg
solid state) come out. And with things like hardware raid controllers,
the OS would either be doing redundant work or needing to know too
much about the implementation of the raid device.

After all, if the drive manufacturer can occasionally get the firmware
wrong for a specific part they designed, what chance do the OS
developers have to do a consistently better job when dealing with many
many more devices?

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2009
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, AD.
wrote:

> On Jan 15, 11:49*pm, Stephen Worthington
> <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:


Can't figure out how to reply to the right message, can you?

>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:45:44 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>
>>> Having cache on a hard drive is a stupid idea. It's putting RAM on the
>>> wrong side of a slow interface.

>
> How so? The speed of the SATA2 bus and disk cache far outstrip the
> disks speed.


But RAM is faster still. That's the point.

> That's the opposite effect of putting your RAM on a slower interface.


RAM should be accessible via the RAM interface. That's how to take advantage
of its speed.

>> It allows the drive to reorganise the head movements to reduce how far
>> it has to move them, and to queue commands. *Of course, the operating
>> system should already be doing that.

>
> The thing is the OS doesn't really know enough about the low level
> implementation details and geometry of the device to do that stuff any
> more.


Linux does <http://lwn.net/Articles/114770/>,
<http://lwn.net/Articles/143474/>, <http://lwn.net/Articles/293369/>.

> And I think that abstraction is a good thing. I'd rather keep the OS
> interface simple (well simpler) and the CPU free from all those
> optimisations as well as avoiding the potential for doing it
> suboptimally or even plain wrong when new devices or device types (eg
> solid state) come out.


Like it or not, flash drives don't behave the same. This has already had an
effect on Windows performance
<http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/472/1033472/sandisk-delays-optimised-ssds>,
<http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/056/1009056/microsoft-discuss-ssds-windows>.
That's why Linux gives you a choice of I/O schedulers
<http://tombuntu.com/index.php/2008/09/04/four-tweaks-for-using-linux-with-solid-state-drives/>.

> And with things like hardware raid controllers,
> the OS would either be doing redundant work or needing to know too
> much about the implementation of the raid device.


Hard drives will soon be too big for RAID to cope.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Silicon Power Armor A80 1TB USB 3.0 Portable Hard Drive Becky Front Page News 0 12-07-2012 06:36 PM
Seagate 1TB Hard Disk Related Products Smart Shoppers NZ Computing 0 10-08-2009 01:28 PM
Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB Hard Drive Ian Front Page News 0 02-18-2009 08:38 AM
FILE TRANSFER TO 1TB WESTERN DIGITAL EXT HD SNAFU Tom Tricep Computer Support 16 02-18-2008 07:33 PM
HEXUS.reviews :: LaCie Two Big 1TB DAS enclosure Silverstrand Front Page News 0 09-28-2006 03:19 AM



Advertisments