Class action lawsuit started against Seagate for consistently failing 3TB Barracuda HDDs

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: Class action lawsuit started against Seagate for consistently failing 3TB Barracuda HDDs[newsimage]http://www.myce.com/wp-content/images_posts/2016/02/DSC5630__66506_zoom-95x75.jpg[/newsimage]

Seagate Barracuda 3TB HDD owners have started a class action lawsuit against the company because it’s drives systematically failed. Also, warranty appointment replacement drives were equally defective causing users to lose data and waste money.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/class-action-lawsuit-started-against-seagate-for-consistently-failing-3tb-barracuda-hdds-78515/](http://www.myce.com/news/class-action-lawsuit-started-against-seagate-for-consistently-failing-3tb-barracuda-hdds-78515/)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

That is bound to happen from time to time when there in reality are no tests performed on the mass-produced drives before they hit the market.

Those of us who have been around long enough to remember that Quantum was the last to leave 1024 bytes in a kilobyte for 1000 will most probably also remember that a harddisk did cost more dollar for dollar back then when compared to today. There was a simple logic to it… They were all tested thoroughly before being packaged and shipped to the market.

Today, no such test is done and so the costumers become the testers. I have found that a harddisk usually fails within three months, or it works as it should.
I find it hard to believe that at least IT departments puts important data on a newly installed RAID without thorough testing. Still I get the feeling that this is what has happened from reading the article, and if this is the case someone really ought to refresh their view on cautiousness in addition to Seagate.


#3

I am sure that all manufacturers perform quality tests, but those test are done to limited numbers of hard drives, so it might not give a realistic failure rate.
Not sure how things were done in the old days but even then there were a lot of drives that failed. I still remember the good old IBM DeathStar :wink: (or was it deskstar?) drives failing after a couple of hours.

I agree that consumers have become the beta testers, and a fine example of that is the Windows 10 OS.
This new trend is something that needs to be stopped, PC users should remain PC users and not any kind of beta testers, both on software and hardware.

I still remember the warranty and the quality that plextor offered with their SCSI drives, but thats an another story. What I would like to say, and to see, is more manufacturers following that example when it comes to quality of both the product and the overall service.

I would love to see the same thing from an EU agency, but this is something that is not going to happen.

Just my random thoughts.


#4

I never bought numerous platter drives at one time but I always used WD Black and never had a bad one.


#5

I’ve had a Western Digital fail after a year due to a hard crash. Â Interesting every other Western Digital I’ve seen still works with no issues or bad sectors and some are getting quite old.

I’ve had a Seagate originally in this computer and within in a year it had gotten louder and when I checked the S.M.A.R.T. data there was already a bad sector at 2 years of use, replaced it with a Western Digital.

I’ve had a Samsung hard drive outlive the motherboard of a computer. Â Everything else in that computer had failed at one time or another but not the stock hard drive. Â Don’t buy a Compaq computer.

Seagate is known for their crappy failure prone drives (I’ve read enough horror stories). Â It’s about time someone brought a class action lawsuit against a hard drive manufacturer for misleading claims of reliability.


#6

I got a 1TB Baracuda gone down with a loss of everything on it…Got a Barracuda 3TB that has BAD Sectors + another 3TB Barracuda going ok at moment and that is in my NAS box. Hope it don’t fail. Got another 3TB Barracuda with photos on it in my Enterprise box…Do you think I could get my Cash back. ?
Bets I don’t…


#7

I’ve gone in phases. I used WD alot, but then I had a 120gb IDE drive fails so I used Maxtors/Hitachi’s for a while. Then the WD green’s came out and they tend to be cheaper.  Been using green’s for my storage drives for a while now and no problems.   I guess sometimes an HD fails, but it sucked replacing it when it did.

I think I’ve only ever had one Seagate.  They’re in the same price range as WD’s, but I don’t hear good things. It’s bad, I think they absorbed Maxtor and I used alot of Maxtor drives back in the day.


#8

[QUOTE=vroom;2767719]I am sure that all manufacturers perform quality tests, but those test are done to limited numbers of hard drives, so it might not give a realistic failure rate.
Not sure how things were done in the old days but even then there were a lot of drives that failed. I still remember the good old IBM DeathStar :wink: (or was it deskstar?) drives failing after a couple of hours.

I agree that consumers have become the beta testers, and a fine example of that is the Windows 10 OS.
This new trend is something that needs to be stopped, PC users should remain PC users and not any kind of beta testers, both on software and hardware.

I still remember the warranty and the quality that plextor offered with their SCSI drives, but thats an another story. What I would like to say, and to see, is more manufacturers following that example when it comes to quality of both the product and the overall service.

I would love to see the same thing from an EU agency, but this is something that is not going to happen.

Just my random thoughts.[/QUOTE]

LOL, IBM deskstar (wasn’t that the 20GB), that was looong after they went from 1024 to 1000 bytes… Back then the harddrives was measured in MB :slight_smile: - I remember how idiotic I found it when a 128 MB harddrive wasn’t 128MB anymore - come to think of it, I still find it idiotic as I simply never seen the point in moving away from base 2 as long as everything else is in that number system.

(For anyone not knowing, it goes like this: 0,1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024 (1024 is 1k not 1000 as it is on harddrives, but the operating system still consider 1024 bytes to be 1KB, 1024KB to be 1MB, 1024MB to be 1GB and finally 1024GB to be 1TB). In other words, the difference between 1000 and 1024 keeps multiplying and is the reason a claimed 4TB hardddrive is in reality only 3.638TB)

It is a general trouble that to bringing production cost down, quality is allowed to drop until the product can not be trusted, but it is in a way the consumers fault who seem to favor low prize over quality whatever they buy.
Like you, I do tend to become a little nostalgic myself when thinking about the quality offered by among others Plextor (heck I still rip my music CDs the Adaptec AHA-2940AU/PX-40TS aka UltraPlex40 SCSI way)

[QUOTE=alan1476;2767720]I never bought numerous platter drives at one time but I always used WD Black and never had a bad one.[/QUOTE]
WD Black used to be my go-to for desktop setups. I Use WD Enterprise 2TB in my RAID and had no problem. Will have to start building a new 16-disk RAID 6 configuration to replace the old this year as I am running out of space. I consider using the same WD model, but this time WD RE Enterprise 4TB (WD4000FYYZ). Still just on the ‘drawing-board’ though as I am considering what controller to use (not all supports RAID 6 and the ones able to drive it adequately costs quite a bit)


#9

I agree, most of us, and sometimes me included, will opt for the cheapest one over the better one. I understand that they need to make more, the consumer wants more storage at a better pricing, and you can have that. You will have to sacrifice something, and that something in most cases appears to be quality control.

I remember that back then most hard drives had three years warranty, and some drives like the WD RE had Five, now I see hard drives that have a two year warranty something that is a good indication in the difference of price and built quality of drives.
I can be sure that once we see one year warranty then there want be any quality left in their product and it will be pure luck on what you get.

WD black’s were great drives, but now if i could afford it, I would choose the RAID/NAS series.

Thankfully the data that I have on such drives can very easily be replaced, I only have to rip some DVD’s and CD’s.


#10

So what does this mean for the Seagate 8tb drives then? I know they have a v2 of the drive release?


#11

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2767772]So what does this mean for the Seagate 8tb drives then? I know they have a v2 of the drive release?[/QUOTE]

I have only positive things to say about even v1 of the monster drive I use as a network drive. What error rate they expect for v2 I would not have any idea about.

For a RAID-6 setup, it is somewhat uninteresting though as even 4TB is maxing out the usability of such a system. The Mean Time to Data Loss (MTTDL) is 2-4 times higher than for a 2TB because rebuild times become incredibly long (days) for a failed 4TB disk depending on controller and so only to be able to loose contact with two disks before loosing data is a tad insecure. For a private setup though, 4TB disks are a feasible solution.

To make use of 8TB drives in a RAID configuration from a security perspective, you would probably have to look at RAID-Z3 which can withstand 3 failed disks without loosing data.
I have not checked what sizes are supported in various NAS boxes as I do not work with them too often

Edit: I’m speaking from a private setup perspective where amount of available storage is of interest. In an enterprise environment, my advice would be very different, however that advice costs money :bigsmile:


#12

[QUOTE=Xercus;2767777]I have only positive things to say about even v1 of the monster drive I use as a network drive. What error rate they expect for v2 I would not have any idea about.[/QUOTE]That’s good to hear so how long have you had yours and is it a main or storage drive? Did you use it in RAID or just Storage drive? I am considering getting a few to reduce the amount of HDD I currently have to save on connections and Space. I can’t afford a 10tb or 16tb SSD that would require a kidney or two that I can’t spare right now… :stuck_out_tongue:


#13

My Seagate 3TB is so far still going strong:

Since first reading about the first Blackblaze reports a few years ago, I just mainly use it for non-important data such as content for video editing, PVR recordings, etc.



#14

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2767786]That’s good to hear so how long have you had yours and is it a main or storage drive? Did you use it in RAID or just Storage drive? I am considering getting a few to reduce the amount of HDD I currently have to save on connections and Space. I can’t afford a 10tb or 16tb SSD that would require a kidney or two that I can’t spare right now… :p[/QUOTE]

Pure single disk storage only drive, no raid configuration. Bought it 8-10 months ago to not having to rush building my next RAID solution.
Like I mention, I do not know how interesting 8TB in size is for a RAID setup of less than 6-8 drives as a RAID Z-3 would grab three drives for recovery data. You could of course [U][I]try[/I][/U] to set it up as RAID 6 if the controller supports the size and it will [U][I]probably[/I][/U] be ok in a private setup, still nothing I can recommend.
RAID 5 is totally out of the question and RAID 1 is no better as it is too costly to loose half the disks to parity data and there is a risk of both mirroring disks to fail at the same time. In other words, it gives you only a very tiny advantage over RAID 5 at a very high cost.

Like you, I had harddrives all over the place, but now I have copied all <500GB to the RAID and so only have about 10 left. large amount of storage gets messy and so to be able to actually find something on the RAID I use the freeware ‘Everything’ from voidtools.com

As you can see to the bottom right, there are [I]a few files[/I] on there, still ‘Everything’ clocks in at the finish line about 3 minutes after startup and searching the results after that are instantly shown on the screen.



#15

Back on topic:

Why do people buy 3TB Seagates when the 4TB is reliable and only a few bux more expensive?

Class action? good luck!

my seagates work fine but no 3TBs here.


#16

[QUOTE=Millennium12;2767794]Back on topic:

Why do people buy 3TB Seagates when the 4TB is reliable and only a few bux more expensive?

Class action? good luck!

my seagates work fine but no 3TBs here.[/QUOTE]

I think it is because earlier, there was a larger price difference and people already own the problem drive.
If people do check before buying today, I can not see any reason why they would choose the 3TB version. If they buy without checking today, as I said countless times, there is no defense against own stupidity.


#17

[QUOTE=Millennium12;2767794]Back on topic:

Why do people buy 3TB Seagates when the 4TB is reliable and only a few bux more expensive?

Class action? good luck!

my seagates work fine but no 3TBs here.[/QUOTE]
Same here all boils down to price one was less expensive that is why. But Seagate drive problem is on a whole new level when drives became dead and price didn’t cause the drive to die. Everyone wants a massive storage medium to store lots of data/files/movies but only if the drive works and for Seagate they were more concerned with bottom line then getting a quality drive out to end-users.


#18

In my main self build PC I have 4x WD Blacks + an ssd…In my Hornettek Enterprise I had 2x 3TB Seagates because price was Lower than the WD blacks (wd put the prices up)…In my Sharecentre I had a 1TB WD. Now I swapped out that 1TB WD and swapped it with the 3TB Seagate. I then bought a 3 TB WD Green for the Enterprise. Going to buy another Green soon and take out the other 3TB Seagate. I Got my backups of ALL my Photos on the Enterprise and I am afraid of this Seagate going down…
All boils down to Cost…


#19

A long time ago (probably around a decade) my sister got a 1tb Seagate FreeAgent USB drive. She was somewhat excited about it (it was an entire terabyte, after all), until, after only a few days, it suddenly died when I was copying a few documents onto it from my computer. She got a replacement from the store she had originally purchased it from, but that replacement also died after a month or two.

It’s sad that all these years later, Seagate is still producing unreliable crap. When I got my most recent desktop, I almost had a heart attack when I found out that the hard drive was indeed a Seagate. Fortunately, that hard drive is still working quite well. But, to this day I still refuse to use or recommend Seagates to anyone.

My favorite brand was always Maxtor. I no longer have a favorite brand.