Problematic Seagate Mobile HDD (ST1000LM035 and ST2000LM007)

[DRF]

Hello everybody,

we have normally good success rate with hard drives, but these Seagate Mobile HDDs are making us scratch our heads (ST1000LM035 and ST2000LM007). We have nice tools from hddsurgery, years of experience with fixing faulty heads in hard drives but still these Mobile HDD-drives have proven to be highly problematic (we have just been practicing with our own drives when it comes to Mobile HDDs, not ready to handle customers' drives just yet).

Have you guys had success with these drives? Are we missing something? Are these drives really picky when it comes to spare parts (if yes, what info should definitely match when choosing a donor drive)? Is there something "special" about these drives, some detail we might be missing?

Please share your experiences with these drives, for some reason we have found these really problematic and would like to hear if others have had better success with these.

[scratchy]

In my opinion, The drives are not fit for purpose. From what I understand they use shingled magnetic recording which is not designed for normal data storage. We have seen the drives used for and marketed as normal data storage and they fail dismally. Seagate should be ashamed of these drives.

They are basically archive drives

[Doomer]

all modern drives are shingled

What does "highly problematic" mean in your opinion?

[digisupport]

Besides from being very poor build, platters made of butter, locked firmware and high failure rates they are normal "Shitgate"
HSA compatibility is not an issue "yet".

[pcimage]

Besides from being very poor build, platters made of butter, locked firmware and high failure rates they are normal "Shitgate"
HSA compatibility is not an issue "yet".

Totally agree!

[scratchy]

I have seen problems with brand new Seagate drives that use shingled recording. One when writing about 20 million files to an 8tb. That started fine at over 100 mb /sec then gradually slowed down to a crawl. Ended up pulling the drive and replacing with a non Seagate drive which ran at normal speeds throughout.

I have avoided all Seagate drives that are shingled.

Doomer, do the Seagate use any form of different translation to take smr into account?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingle ... _recording

[Doomer]

Doomer, do the Seagate use any form of different translation to take smr into account?

Yes and not only Seagates

[scratchy]

ok, thanks Doomer,
Has it changed much since the first archive and backup drives. They are the drives that I have seen with most problems. Is media cache used during track rewriting ?

Or how does it work ?

[Doomer]

ok, thanks Doomer,
Has it changed much since the first archive and backup drives. They are the drives that I have seen with most problems. Is media cache used during track rewriting ?

Rosewoods seem to be better in performance comparing to Lamarrs (the ones you were referring to) although MC is still used for bands grouping and writing
WDs on the other hand using completely different approach on shingled drives and it has its up and down sides. The worst down side being a chance to lose all your data in a blink of an eye, had two drives like this already.

[pepe]

does wd happen to use a 'flash' style translator?

[Doomer]

does wd happen to use a 'flash' style translator?

yes

[pepe]

wise...

until it gets corrupted.