ChromeBeauty

Recommendations for replacing Seagate Barracuda 7200.14(ST3000DM001)

26 posts in this topic

Hi

As problems start to show up I need to replace this drive.

Looking around through the web it looks very thin on round-ups or even test at all on HDs, does anyone know a place besides here of course where I can find some decent informations?

I would prefer a drive with a similar performance and at least the same size(3TB).

Any recommendations?

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With single drives, it really comes down to budget, performance need and brand preference. Is this simply for internal use in a PC as a data storage drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No as complete system drive, I just don't want to toy around with SSDs yet also because I want to setup a RAID 1 to keep the system going in case one drive bails out and there isn't much space in my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were me I'd get a small SSD for OS and use an HDD for bulk storage with offsite backup of the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Brian said. At this point in the game, SSD's are cheap enough it's hard to say no to, and as far as safety of your data, a separate backup is (and has been) strongly recommended since forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding space: a SSD has absolutely no moving parts. There are videos on the Tube where they kick and throw the things and they still work. This is not recommended, but: you don't need a mounting slot for them. Just stuff them in anywhere where they do not short the mainboard or so and you're good to go. Duct-tape as you feel necessary. Further care is IMO only needed if you're moving the machine physically.

And they're mature enough that there's really not much you'd need to "toy around" with. Just use them and never look back. A 120 or 250 GB Crucial MX100 is a solid starting point.

Once you have the SSD for your system and programs, the performance requirements on the HDD are relaxed and you can save money there by going with a slower model. Not that any of them could be considered even remotely "fast" compared to SSDs - but faster HDDs quickly drive up the cost significantly.

The others already touched upon the topic of backups. How serious you want to get ultimately depends on how valuable your data is to you. At the minimum I'd keep a weekly backup on a local external drive, disconnected from the PC if not in use. Your current 3 TB could do this. If e.g. it's only got a few months of runtime left, it would take years to reach that threshold if it's only used for cold backups. And if it really fails you simply replace it and mirror things again - no harm done. Programs like "DirSync" can be used to setup automatic incremental mirror-backups which run quickly once the bulk of data is transfered.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding space: a SSD has absolutely no moving parts. There are videos on the Tube where they kick and throw the things and they still work. This is not recommended, but: you don't need a mounting slot for them. Just stuff them in anywhere where they do not short the mainboard or so and you're good to go. Duct-tape as you feel necessary. Further care is IMO only needed if you're moving the machine physically.

MrS

The one thing that will kill SSDs though is frequent sudden loss of power, especially if you are doing something write intensive.

Anecdotal evidence, but on the overclocking forums, a lot of people have managed to kill SSDs from their many hard resets (needed to test OC stability). I imagine enterprise SSDs with caps might be able to better stand up to this sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well well I'm currently thinking about SSDs. Indeed an SSD for Windows, Software and games would give all the speed I need, while I could change to slower 3TB drives for the rest of the data.

The setup I had previously intended was simply a 2x 3TB RAID 1 so to keep going in case one drives fails.

Would an SSD RAID 1 make sense?

I just scratches the topic of SSDs but it looks like RAID for SSDs is not really recommended as it could lower the performance and also some things won't work like TRIM.

Regarding backups, the HD gets a weekly backup onto an external HD, some partitions are quarterly burned in case some real crap happens and I collect daily all of the constantly changing stuff(mail, browser, paperwork, etc.)via DirSync onto a partition and from there to an USB Stick also via DirSync.

Of course that still leaves room for losses, if I change some material on the data partitions and the drive would fail a day before I make the weekly backup I could loose a bunch of data, that I also why I wanted to do a mirror RAID, but of course in case of some catastrophic failure like the power supply frying everything connected to it that would also not help, but then again an external drive constantly doing backups and so being constantly connected to the system could meet the same fate.

Overclocking is no topic, at least currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can definitely RAID1 the SSDs if you're worried about it. If it were me, I'd run a single drive, back up regularly and replace the drive if it fails. The 2X cost doesn't seem worthwhile for a non mission critical environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, you definitely thought about backups :)

A RAID 1 for SSDs: I read somewhere that modern Intel drivers allow to pass TRIM to SDDs used with chipset raid. I can't tell you more about this, though. If you go for an SSD Raid 0:

- regular annual failure rates of reliable SSDs (like the MX100) are around 0.1%, so pretty unlikely an way better than HDDs

- the SSD would by definition host the most frequently changing data, so if any component in your system would benefit from even more security than your current backup plan it would probably a system SSD

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I will go for an SSD, I'm not quick at jumping onto new things(Haste makes waste in my opinion) but I guess it's about time to try it

So that still leaves me with the need to replacement the current 3TB drive, seeing it now as datagrave the lower spinning models(5400-5900) also come onto the radar but I wonder how long a backup would take with these "slow" models, they simply won't put as much through as the current 7200 model that makes slightly above 160MB/s average transfer rate.

Just to compared validating the last full backup(around 2TB) I made took about 3.5 hours for the external HD that also spins at 7200.

Whats for sure is that it should use 1TB platter to not be even slower because of a lower density.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a 7200rpm 3TB disk, best value may be Toshiba's 3.5" disks these days... cheaper than WD Black (at least in the USA) and avoids Seagate 3TB's less-than-ideal reliabiity. Not sure if HGST has a desktop drive in that size that's readily available. (memory is fuzzy on specific part #s, been dealing with too many other disk capacities lately...)

OTOH if you are going to look at 7200rpm 4TB disks, Seagate, Toshiba, Hitachi, WD are all just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toshiba is relatiively cheap, indeed. And they even offer a "normally" priced 7.2k rpm 4 TB model, which you can't get from Seagate or WD.

I've got a 500 GB model in my work PC from 2013 and I don't like it that much, but don't know how representative that is. It's vibrating more than the 640 GB 2 platter WD Black it replaced (sometimes makes the entire case vibrate) and absolutely chokes on USB 2 transfers. Which sounds like a weird software issue (Intel Z77 chipset on Win 8.1?) since it doesn't show this problem with USB 3. I wouldn't hesitate buying another one of them for a "data grave" type disk.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the drive and how sensitive you are to noise. The average consumer can't tell the difference, yet I definitely know people who can.

SilentPCReview and some other sites do very nice noise measurements of harddisks they review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking around through the web it looks very thin on round-ups or even test at all on HDs, does anyone know a place besides here of course where I can find some decent informations?

I recommend to buy a similar model from each vendor. Then test them yourself, put the winner into use and use the others for backup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is, is a 5k drive much more silent than a 7200 drive?

It also depends on how loud the other components in your system (or the entire surrounding) are. Another factor is the mounting: if the drive is firmly attached to a rattling metal case, the noise is far larger than with a decoupled mounting. This does not directly answer your question, but what I want to say is this: if you can hear a 5k rpm drive, a 7k rpm drive is audibly louder. If not.. chances are pretty good that you won't hear the 7k rpm drive either.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ST3000DM001 just failed yesterday

I replaced it with one of the toshiba MD04ACA500 drives today.

I had pretty much the exact same issue as you, suddenly ~40 bad sectors and tons of I/O errors on boot after ~2.5yrs power on hours.

Edited by thisperson100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes one think about that perticular drive, when you read reviews on the internet, and see what backblaze has experienced with that exact model. Over the last 6 months, 57% of reviewers gave it a 1 star rating, most of them due to deaths after a few years of use.

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

The rapport albeit maybe flawed, due to sourcing issues, is a good indication of the general state of that perticular drive.

They have a whopping 6% of their initial drives still running in production, where 1342 (32%) died in production, and another 2597 (62%) was removed from the chassis, and retested.. 75% percent of those drives died under test!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The drive is definitely more vulnerable than others. I would not expect such extreme failure rates without the extreme environment blakcblaze is putting them in. The high amount of vibration in those pods may very well harm the 1st 7.2k rpm drive with 1 TB platters. And this may well be the reason others hesitated for so long to tie this density, and even Seagate themselves didn't use that technology for 4 TB.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will likely setup a 4TB RAID and I guess that external backup drive also has to be enlarged to at least 5TB but that can wait till later.

Now continuum mentioned that at 7200 and 4TB all manufactures are just fine, isn't there any drive standing out or should I just grab the cheapest?

And what about a model in the 5000 range?

Edited by ChromeBeauty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get whatever's cheapest from Seagate, HGST, WD, Toshiba....

If it's just data storage a slower 5400/5900rpm drive is probably fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case I got three rather cheap drives where I don't know what they are up to:

Intenso 4TB, SATA 6Gb/s (6513123)
http://geizhals.de/intenso-4tb-6513123-a942735.html

Not sure what Intenso is but such a cheap price compared to other manufactures looks suspicious to me.

Toshiba MD-Series 4TB, SATA 6Gb/s (PX3009E-1HP0)

http://geizhals.de/toshiba-md-series-4tb-px3009e-1hp0-a1245262.html

Seems to be a very new drive, listed in March and currently it had a rather unusual price drop by almost 30 bucks not even a month after it went online, that also looks suspicious to me.

Toshiba MD-Series 5TB, SATA 6Gb/s (PX3010E-1HQ0)

http://geizhals.de/toshiba-md-series-5tb-px3010e-1hq0-a1245270.html

Same goes here, listed in March but with 5TB in a price section where you can only get the cheapest HGST drives, rather strange.

Next is a field of HGST drives for almost the same price:
HGST Deskstar NAS 4TB, SATA 6Gb/s, retail (H3IKNAS40003272SE/0S03665)

http://geizhals.de/hgst-deskstar-nas-4tb-h3iknas40003272se-0s03665-a1060887.html

I guess the features provided in this NAS drive are no benefit for me, I guess the "normal" drive below would do it as good if not better.

HGST Deskstar 7K4000 4TB, SATA 6Gb/s (HDS724040ALE640/H3IK40003272SW/0F14681)

http://geizhals.de/hgst-deskstar-7k4000-4tb-hds724040ale640-h3ik40003272sw-0f14681-a682487.html

That seems to be the recommended drive under the leaderboard section.

HGST Deskstar IDK 4TB 7200rpm, SATA 6Gb/s, retail (0S03356)

http://geizhals.de/hgst-deskstar-idk-4tb-7200rpm-0s03356-a740982.html

Is this simply a retail version of the above drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now