Customer Review

511 of 577 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars 3TB for Synology NAS, January 17, 2012
This review is from: Seagate 3TB Desktop HDD SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache 3.5-Inch Internal Bare Drive (ST3000DM001) (Personal Computers)
This is one of the select few 3TB drives approved by Synology for use in a variety of their NAS devices, so I put 4 of these in a DS411 in SHR with one disk redundancy (basically RAID 5). While anyone will tell you enterprise hard drives are better in RAID 5 or 6 configurations - and they are right, for the most part - it's hard to deny the big price difference in going enterprise: 3TB enterprise drives are well over $550 right now due to the recent Thailand flood and it may be some time before that price drops significantly. While these drives weren't as cheap as the 3TB WD Caviar Green varieties, I will NEVER put Caviar Greens in a RAID 5 again, so the ST3000DM001 quickly rose to the top of my admittedly short list.

I think it's important to point out that IntelliPower (WD) and CoolSpin (Hitachi) technologies are not really ideal for any kind of RAID array using parity. WD Caviar Green drives, especially, are known to sometimes not power up when needed, ultimately resulting in them getting dropped from the RAID array. A good NAS like the DS411 will put the drives into hibernation after 10 minutes of no activity, so you don't really need the benefit of "eco-friendly" drives in this kind of RAID anyways. Plus, with 7200RPM you will get speed improvements, so it's a no brainer to pick a drive like this over those.

That said, of course these do not have TLER, RAFF and other advantages of enterprise-class drives. So you run the risk of more errors, RAID rebuilds and potential failures by choosing a consumer drive like this. But even though the risk is greater, it's not really worth the extra money to go to 3TB enterprise-class, so I feel this is a good compromise of risk vs. value.

UPDATE - 7/12/13

I felt I should come back and update this review (and my rating) due to 2 of these drives encountering bad sectors and getting dropped from my RAID volume within a 1 month period of time. It took over a year and a half for this to happen but it's still an unacceptable loss ratio in my opinion. I still did not encounter that dreaded second disk failure while rebuilding my RAID5 with a new drive - both times the rebuilds completed without a hitch. Once again, that situation has not happened in my 15 years of professional IT work. I ended up going with the WD Red 3 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache - WD30EFRX to replace the Seagates. Although Synology and other NAS manufacturers ignore the TLER timings in enterprise drives and implement their own, I feel the Reds (and by extension the RE's) are better suited for NAS usage and will be more versatile should I choose to put them in different RAIDs or NAS's in the future.

So in summary, I can't really recommend these Seagates anymore after my personal experience and the drop in price in the WD Reds.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Tracked by 12 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 61 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 23, 2012 5:10:10 AM PDT
manaox2 says:
Since you are talking risk vs. value. 3Tb drives with a 2 Year Warranty for RAID? It could take 12 hours or more to rebuild the redundancy and you have only one disk redundancy. Your chances of a second drive failure are going to be increased tremendously over something like a 1.5TB RAID 5 system along with bit error statistics; it wouldn't be too surprising when you lose all of your data when you encounter the first error while rebuilding a bad disk. That is a large amount of overhead in storage for storing a lot of files that, I'm guessing, are not going to be accessed often. Best of luck.

Posted on Apr 12, 2012 8:29:18 AM PDT
J. Liu says:
How is the noise level, during idle and during seeking from 5 ft away? Can you share some insight with us?


In reply to an earlier post on Apr 18, 2012 9:08:13 AM PDT
Steve E. says:
manaox2 - Well, again, risk vs. value. Sure, it's always possible for a second drive to fail during the rebuild process. But it's pretty unlikely, and I'm willing to take that gamble for having double the storage capacity that I would have had with RAID1 or RAID6 (and RAID6 doesn't make much sense in a 4-bay chassis either). What was more important to me was having a huge repository for my media library with at least some level of protection, at a reasonable price. I have the peace of mind that there is parity protection and that Synology engineers stress-tested this drive in their products and approved it for RAID usage. That's honestly good enough for me, and I didn't spend a fortune either.

Posted on Apr 23, 2012 3:31:59 PM PDT
James says:
Good review!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012 7:06:34 AM PDT
I have several 2 TB 5900 green seagate drives and the 3 TB 7200 drives and all drivers are silent.

Posted on May 6, 2012 2:49:58 AM PDT
Hoopty says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 7:21:02 AM PDT
J. Liu says:

Posted on May 6, 2012 10:13:20 AM PDT
bwdot says:
Thanks for the info.
What I will do is to get 6x ST3000DM001 for my Synology DS1812+ run 4 as a raid5 and 2 as mirror for backup. I bet that will be as least as safe as the "enterprise level" hard disk...

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 10:17:54 PM PDT
If someone has already answered yoru question " what the heck if a RAID array" sorry in advance.

RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks"

Used to combine a bunch of hard drive to make primarily ONE big storage drive unit.

RAID 0= Performance only but if one drive fails...the entire group of all drives connected that way fails

I forgot the rest of the details of the other options off hand. Happy researching. :)

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 9:36:25 AM PDT
David Nelson says:
Hi Steve - was wondering how your setup is working 6 months later. I am debating on going with the same setup. Seems very cost effective.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›