ST3000DM001

The ST3000DM001 is a harddisk released by Seagate Know-how in 2011 as part of the Seagate Barracuda sequence. It has a ability of 3 terabytes (TB) and a spindle streak of 7200 RPM. This particular pressure mannequin modified into reported to possess unusually excessive failure rates, approximately 5.7 instances greater fail rates in comparability to rather loads of 3 TB drives.^[1]

Specifications[edit]

The ST3000DM001 makes use of three 1 TB platters, compared to five platters within the old generation Barracuda XT pressure, and has a spindle streak of 7200 RPM. The pressure makes use of a 40 nm dual-core LSI controller and 64 MB of DDR2-800 because the DRAM cache. As part of the liberate of its 1 TB-platter drives, Seagate announced that it modified into phasing out its Barracuda Green line of 5900 RPM hard drives.
^[2]

Reception[edit]

Anand Lal Shimpi of AnandTech well-known that the ST3000DM001 is “a tiny bit faster in sequential performance than the former Barracuda XT, at lower vitality consumption” and that “Seagate seems to be to possess optimized the pressure’s conduct for lower vitality in place of peak performance”. He talked about he modified into “in my view OK” with the lower performance under heavy hundreds as long because the pressure is frail in conjunction with a solid-assert pressure (SSD) in a tool.^[2]

Backblaze, a far off backup carrier company, seen that its ST3000DM001 drives possess failed at rates far greater than the life like of rather loads of hard drives.^[1] Finest 251 of the 4,190 ST3000DM001 hard drives placed in carrier in 2012 had been aloof in carrier as of 31 March 2015.^[3]

In line with Backblaze, the corporate switched to Seagate 3 TB hard drives after the 2011 Thailand floods disrupted the provision of hard drives and increased their prices by 200–300%. Backblaze, which on the final frail HGST 3 TB hard drives, had been finest ready to search out Seagate 3 TB drives in “decent quantity”. Backblaze well-known that the failure rates of the ST3000DM001 did no longer be conscious a bathtub curve customarily adopted by harddisk failure rates, as an replacement having 2.7% failing in 2012, 5.4% failing in 2013, and 47.2% failing in 2014. Assorted 3 TB hard drives that Backblaze placed in carrier in 2012, which had been operated in a identical setting because the Seagate drives, did no longer expose indicators of increased failure.^[3]

Joel Hruska of ExtremeTech well-known that Backblaze modified into unable to demonstrate the excessive failure rates of the ST3000DM001 compared to rather loads of merchandise. Hruska identified that Seagate nick again the guarantee for these drives, in conjunction with most rather loads of harddisk producers, from three years to 1 300 and sixty five days in 2012. Hruska supplied provider-alternate or part substitution, shipping of homely hardware to develop profits, and Backblaze’s use of client hard drives in an endeavor setting as imaginable explanations.^[1] Paul Alcorn of Tom’s Hardware identified that of the 3 TB harddisk fashions that had been in carrier with Backblaze, the ST3000DM001 modified into the right pressure with out a rotational vibration sensor that counteracts excessive vibration in heavy-usage circumstances.^[4]

Class action[edit]

In 2016, Seagate faced a class action over the failure rates of its ST3000DM001 3 TB drives.^[4][5][6][7] Law company Hagens Berman filed the lawsuit on 1 February within the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and primarily cited reliability records supplied by Backblaze. The lawsuit additionally pointed to user opinions of the harddisk on Newegg, which totaled extra than 700 opinions with 2 or fewer stars.^[5]

The lawsuit lists Christopher Nelson, who bought a Seagate Backup Plus 3 TB pressure and a Seagate Barracuda 3 TB harddisk in October 2011, as its plaintiff. Both merchandise therefore failed, and the lawsuit contended that Seagate modified them with inherently depraved merchandise.^[4]

Steve Berman, managing companion of Hagens Berman, talked about that the hard drives “did now not follow it Seagate’s promises, and replacements from Seagate had been right as unhealthy”.^[6] Bruno Ferreira of The Tech File compared the lawsuit with the excessive failure rates faced by the IBM Deskstar 75GXP and 60GXP hard drives in 2002.^[7] Paul Alcorn of Tom’s Hardware argued that Backblaze frail the drives in a technique that “far exceeded the guarantee stipulations” and questioned the “technical merits” of the lawsuit.^[4]

On June 15, 2018, Snatch Joseph Spero ruled that the category action plaintiffs have to separate into extra than one classes, as there modified into too worthy variability in failure rates to mix all claims a single class.^[8][9] In 2019, the plaintiffs had been denied class certification a second time.^[10]

References[edit]