Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ST3000DM001

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 259 posts

Re: ST3000DM001

#161

Post by gruez »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #124
th0ma5 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean at first it sounded like fraud, but then you explained it, and then it really sounded like fraud.

Fraud requires that there is some financial benefit to gain that you are not entitled to

IANAL but wikipedia says that you just need some sort of gain, not necessarily financial benefit. Warranty service entitles you to replacement only if it's broken, not when you feel like it. In that aspect you are gaining, since you're potentially getting a replacement you're not entitled to.

Re: ST3000DM001

#162

Post by bombcar »

opheliate wrote: post #20
geocrasher wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at a small web hosting company back then, and we used a bunch of IBM Deathstar's. They certainly lived up to their name! I disassembled one just to see what went wrong, and I found the cause (of that drive's failure, at least). Here's a list of terms for reference: http://data-recovery-tips.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/h... At some point, the bearing that serves as the pivot that the actuator arm and act…

Ah man, there’s something about reading about physical hard drive failure that really makes me cringe. Really beautifully intricate technology, but man, when things come out of place…

Hard drives are one of those pieces of precision engineering that we encounter on a regular basis - it's quite amazing they work at all given the conditions we submit them to.

Re: ST3000DM001

#163

Post by bluedino »

b3lvedere wrote: post #128
myrandomcomment wrote: post #24

Back in the mid 90s I was working in IT at a midsized company. We used Compaq desktops (this is the Pentium Pro timeframe). The HD in the system where quantum fireball (IIRC). They failed at an amazing rate all in the first 3 months (30%). We called Compaq at one point and said, look we want replacement drives for all of our remaining systems. After much back and forth (stupid on their part as we had 1000+ machines o…

I remember a time when Compaq used the Quantum Bigfoot (5.25" harddrive) in their workstations. They were noisy and slow. They were also mounted upside down. The failure rate was very high.

Ahh, the Quantum Bigfoot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bigfoot

A massive drive. I worked in computer retail at the time, and I lost count of how many customers brought their Compaq Presarios in, DOA, and one of those drives inside.

We'd sell them a new hard drive off the shelf, install it and send them on their way (they were out of warranty, of course).

Re: ST3000DM001

#164

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

I had a a moment of "Well, that's weird, I recognize that name." I have one sitting in this very PC right now. Used it as a gaming drive until I was able to buy a 1TB SSD but it's still trucking along.

I guess I'll want to replace that soon.

Re: ST3000DM001

#165

Post by 509engr »

I got three of these for a home NAS, not knowing any better. One failed within a day, the next failed within the first month, the third one lasted several years. For a long time, I didn't trust the NAS, making regular second backups (always a good idea) figuring it was the common point of failure, but the replacement drives were all working fine.

Re: ST3000DM001

#166

Post by flyinghamster »

geocrasher wrote: post #12
Koiwai wrote: post #9

Damn, I have a 12 disk RAID-Z2 with that, almost all of them failed in about 1~2 years, luckily because of Z2, I didn't lose any data. I'll never buy seagate again.

I bought a 500GB WD Green drive in 2010, and in 2011 I needed a second 500GB disk in a hurry. I went to a local supplier and all I could get was a Seagate 500GB disk. Oh well, beggars can't be choosers. I retired them both earlier this year, replacing them with a single 2TB WD Blue drive to augment my SSD. They are both still fully functional, not so much as a SMART error. I chalk it up to two things: The first is an…

I also generally tend to keep drives powered up, and they indeed tend to live long. Still, I have to be on alert for failing drives. I had four of the WD30EFRX together in a 2x2 pool (roughly equivalent to RAID10). One day, one of them began showing checksum errors after a scrub, and I replaced it with a Toshiba DT01ACA300.

Once the bad drive was out of the pool, I ran a full self-test on it, which it failed. I did at least get five years of service out of it, but in any case, it's time for me to think about some newer hardware.

For my next NAS, I'm kind of leaning towards using 2x8TB mirrored, with a third drive to be rotated into the mirror, splitting off the rotated-out drive as an offline backup.

Re: ST3000DM001

#167

Post by HideousKojima »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #164

I had a a moment of "Well, that's weird, I recognize that name." I have one sitting in this very PC right now. Used it as a gaming drive until I was able to buy a 1TB SSD but it's still trucking along. I guess I'll want to replace that soon.

Hard drives tend to fail early or after a long, long period of use, without much of an in-between. If it survived the first year of use then it should last as long as any other spinning disk drive.

Re: ST3000DM001

#168

Post by gruez »

andai wrote: post #111
K0balt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time it was kind of an open secret in the industry. The floods were a convenient explanation, but a very large order from a client with a confidentiality clause ( very common in the industry) was widely known to be the main reason for short supply. It is possible that this client was someone else other than the NAS er... NSA but it is not very likely and at the time it was conventional wisdom among insiders th…

One of my favorite memes (in the sense of memetics) is the meme "conspiracy theorist". This phrase was weaponized by the CIA as a memetic self-defense mechanism. (Their own documents admit this!) But if you tell someone this, the meme itself is triggered in their mind, and their instinct is to not believe you, because you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

>This phrase was weaponized by the CIA as a memetic self-defense mechanism. (Their own documents admit this!)

That seems... totally expected? The problem comes when you're trying to use it as proof of something. Some conspiracy theories do turn out to be true, but that doesn't mean every conspiracy is true.

Re: ST3000DM001

#169

Post by gruez »

sinyug wrote: post #121
pas wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... but aren't the observations itself part of the standard narrative, and the nonstandard part is how people explain them? (One standard explanation being that they are just some next-level high-tech stuff being tested.)

> but aren't the observations itself part of the standard narrative Only in a technical sense. When people talk about UFOs, they are not referring to known things like weather balloons, planes or fighter jets, but, instead, to something out of the ordinary. However, every "standard" explanation offered is one of these things. The standard narrative here is: UFOs don't exist.

>The standard narrative here is: UFOs don't exist.

That seems like a reasonable narrative considering that the definition of UFO you used basically means "aliens".

Re: ST3000DM001

#170

Post by gruez »

anticodon wrote: post #106
simondotau wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plausibility of a conspiracy theory diminishes as the number of people necessary to keep the secret increases. How many people work in Thailand's hard drive manufacturing plants? Hundreds? Thousands? How many people in the logistics channels? How many people are vending food to these employees? How many people in the US Government? Oh, and pulling this off would also require co-ordination with Thai Government. Th…

But where would a person speak to disclose the secret? Internet is very effectively censored by the US monopolies now. If something is not indexed by Google, it's effectively non-existent. FAANG censorship is fast and effective. E.g. there were many important US bureaucrats involved in the Theranos scandal (even current US president). When I try to find anything related to that matter now, Google returns pages with m…

> But where would a person speak to disclose the secret? Internet is very effectively censored by the US monopolies now.

So why didn't they bother censoring this comment?

Post reply on HN