Seagate "ironwolf" 10TB nas hdd $448

Seagate IronWolf ST10000VN0004 10TB 256MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive Bare Drive

drives literally came out today

they appear to be helium drives with 256 megabytes of cache
for nas systems

but that price is amazing

but the brand Seagate just kind of scares me

1 Like

Me to my 10 foot poll:

10 Foot Poll, you can look at the Seagate drive, but don't you dare touch it.



There is a lot of talk about Seagate from a small portion of drives brought up through questionable test and dodgy samples.

Yeah there are problem drives but every company has them. Backblaze has quite a lot to answer for with their results. Sourcing drives from Joe public who mailed them in? Yeah reliable.

My 3TB Seagate drives have been rocking along for good bit with no problems, but they are video surveillance models made for 24/7 operation @ 5900 rpms. I've had them is a 6 disc RaidZ2 ZFS pool for 3 yrs. I'm going to be looking for a upgrade pretty soon since I'm starting to get close to filling up my current storage pool. I might consider these if the price comes down some since I have to buy at least 6 to upgrade the whole pool.

Kind of surprising to me they went with Sata 6gpbs instead of 12gbps sas for a drive of this capacity. Seems like that's one of those things they might have thrown in too make it more enticing to enterprise customers. Idk how many home consumers are going to be buying four or five of these for a raid 6, shame on you if you buy these for raid 5. The amount of these you'd want for a Raid 6 makes this like $2k in drives for a nas minimum. No thankyou.

Also, the Price/GB on these drives is kind of ridiculous. Its a .043 in $/GB, which is substantially higher than even Seagate's 8TB drive, which can be found for .030$/GB:

I have over 16 Seagate drives (at home, and even more at work) that all work since the day I got them, I have one that is a 10gb IDE drive that still kicks along at full speed.

1 Like

I just replaced a few of my hard drives with an 8terabyte some of them are over 10 years old and still kicking along the old 2 terabyte drives

Pretty sure they didn't accept them if the packaging had been opened. They're a data center, they try to get as much bang for their buck as possible, and swapping out drives does cost time and hence money. Using second-hand drives would hurt their bottom line.
Yes, putting desktop drives in a huge server rack is not a typical use-case scenario, but the HGST and WD drives were desktop drives too (also sourced the same way) and those didn't fail nearly as much.
A shitty drive is a shitty drive no matter how you use it.

Furthermore, most PC builders will verify that Backblaze's results are accurate.

I built several PCs with the notorious 3TB Seagates in the second half of 2011 (one or 2 drives per machine, so nothing like the circumstances that the Backblaze drives endured).
By early 2014 every last one of those drives had failed.

Wendell also reported a 33% failure rate (in the first year alone) on his own collection.

46:50 and onwards.

Seagate had a 3 year warranty back in 2011. Once the ST3000DM001 ones started dying en masse, the warranty was quickly reduced to 1 year.

Currently I have several Seagate 1TB and 2TB 2.5" drives, and 3 of the 5TB 3.5" models (all in USB3.0 enclosures), but I only use them for backup.
Even though Seagate is now just about as reliable as the others again, I still don't trust them for daily use. That's what WD and HGST are for.

It looks like the new Barracuda Pro Series
which also comes in 10 terabytes
has a spindle speed of 7200 RPM also with 256 megabytes of cache

it claims to have a maximum power draw of just under 7 Watts
and a maximum sustained transfer rate of
220 megabytes per second and A 5 year warranty

That one is out of stock currently but costs $510

1 Like

I would rather buy 5 refurbished Hitachi 2TB drives off of eBay since those are going for $30 apiece. and then install them on a FreeNAS box that I make from an i3-2100 and ECC memory. And then run them in RAID. Because that would be cheaper, both in the long run and the short. Because Seagate drives have a reputation for dying. And it would be faster.

Sure that would cost less but you would have to have a crapload of those drives to match the size available on these high density units

I'm the type of person that prefers to maximize my storage so I would go for the largest single disks possible

I've never had a problem with Seagate drives. I did have one problem but I don't know if it's a problem with the drive and it hasn't happened again.

When I think about it the only Seagate drives that I have ever had fail on me were external units that I had carelessly kicked or knocked over while they were in operation

I am just saying that the reliability survey was not all candy and rainbows Seagate are shit

I mean there was stuff like this;

Backblaze also acknowledges using drives that were known RMA's, and refurbished, in the sample pool.

From here:

Personally never had a Seagate drive fail, very much seems like it was blown put of proportion twisted and warped to make headlines like all "news" these days.