Seagate ST2000DL003?

[FinGerS o FuDgE]

I've not trailed through the 30 pages, but what is the deal with the ST2000DL003 hard drives?
I want to but a TS112 tomorrow, but struggling to find a decent, reliable hard drive. This one seems to be recommended on Amazon.co.uk on the 'Frequently bought together' and on the 'Unofficial 3.5" Compatibility list' it is stated that two have been running well for over a year.

Could someone give a quick reply as I really want to order the 112 asap

[shelter]

I have four ST2000DL003 that have been running in a TS-419P+ without any problems since a firmware update late Summer last year. But as you can tell from this thread, your mileage may vary.

[P3R]

This one seems to be recommended on Amazon.co.uk on the 'Frequently bought together'...

And several of those contributing to that buying statistics have come here later to complain...

...and on the 'Unofficial 3.5" Compatibility list' it is stated that two have been running well for over a year.

Far more relevant is that it is listed as not recommended on the official Qnap disk compatibility list.

If you want a low rpm, low power disk the Seagate ST2000DL004 (aka Samsung HD204UI) or Hitachi HDS5C3020ALA632 are probably the best choices. Among 7200 rpm disks the Hitachi HDS723020BLA642 is one of the most used disks with very few complaints. Of course all of these are on the compatibility list.

[Lucidor]

This just happened to me. Brand new QNAP TS-419P II and four new Seagate ST2000DL003. After one month of flawless performance, disk #3 was suddenly ejected and system enetered degraded mode. No S.M.A.R.T. errors reported.

In my case the problem occured in the early morning when I logged in to my desktop computer which has the NAS mounted over NFS. This wakes up the disks that are configured to sleep after 30 minutes of inactivity. Before that, the system has been on idle during the night. I have now switched off the sleep mode and the RAID5 system is currently rebuildning, so I keep my fingers crossed. I estimate that the process will last about 24 hours.

It never occured to me that some disks could be compatible and some not, only that MTBF would differ between consumer products and enterprise products. I don't understand why a RAID configuration would make a difference from the disks point of view. It's the same physical and logical interface between disks and computer as in a non-RAID configuration. If there is a problem with synchronization during spin up, why does it not manifest itself in all configurations? Also, if this is not an issue with x86-based NAS products, how can it still be that the disks are blamed? It's not logical to me.

[P3R]

I don't understand why a RAID configuration would make a difference from the disks point of view.

It doesn't make a difference, for the disk.

But since a key function of a redundant RAID-configuration is to drop non-working disks to be able to still provide uninterrupted service, such an installation must have other requirements than a simple desktop system.

If there is a problem with synchronization during spin up, why does it not manifest itself in all configurations?

Well I think that's the huge question that Qnap (and Seagate, if they care about it?) have been struggling with to find out.

Also, if this is not an issue with x86-based NAS products, how can it still be that the disks are blamed?

I don't know if it isn't a problem on x86-based NASes, but if all other disks (except the infamous WD Caviar Green line) work, how can it still be that the NAS is blamed? We don't know which manufacturer (or both?) is really to blame for the compatibility issue here but it seems to be a very hard issue to isolate.

Qnap have historically solved a number of issues (many regarding spin-up times) with several specific disk models from different manufacturers so I don't think it is a lack of interest from their side. It's simply bad luck that it isn't a very clear issue to diagnose.

[Lucidor]

Thank you P3R for your input. My system is still rebuilding after 36 hours. When I logged in with SSH I noticed that Twonky media server was consuming over 80% of the CPU power according to "top". I stopped Twonly and the recovery is now progressing faster although I estimate that there are many hours still to go. I wish there was a faster way to recover from ejected disks.

[fionncolvin]

Thank you P3R for your input. My system is still rebuilding after 36 hours. When I logged in with SSH I noticed that Twonky media server was consuming over 80% of the CPU power according to "top". I stopped Twonly and the recovery is now progressing faster although I estimate that there are many hours still to go. I wish there was a faster way to recover from ejected disks.

When you are back up and running enable bitmaps.
Disk Management -> RAID Management

It dramatically improves rebuild time after a dropped disk. It does consume a small amount of disk space however.

[Nitro182]

3.7.1 loaded, disk 4 ejected this morning.

*Frustrated*

I was hopeful 3.7.1 would improve the disk unplugging issue but obviously not...

Adam

[P3R]

I was hopeful 3.7.1 would improve the disk unplugging issue but obviously not...

There is no mention of any fix regarding this disk in the 3.7.1 release notes and it is still listed as non-recommended on the Qnap disk compatibility list. I'm sure the latter will be updated when the issue is fixed, if it is at all fixable by Qnap??!

[gkchamp]

It's been going on for 18 months now. It's not going to be fixed. I sent them back my 412 and got upgraded to a 459 for virtually nothing. The 459 doesn't get the unplugged error, it just locks up and stops working. I swapped the hard drives out and no problems.

It's clearly a disk problem but Qnap had them on the recommended list for a while so it's up to them to compensate the people that bought them during this time. Get in contact with them and complain. That's what i did.

[Nitro182]

It's been going on for 18 months now. It's not going to be fixed. I sent them back my 412 and got upgraded to a 459 for virtually nothing. The 459 doesn't get the unplugged error, it just locks up and stops working. I swapped the hard drives out and no problems.

It's clearly a disk problem but Qnap had them on the recommended list for a while so it's up to them to compensate the people that bought them during this time. Get in contact with them and complain. That's what i did.

This is my biggest frustration! If I went out and purchased these drives knowing they were incompatible then honestly, I'd be annoyed but the only one to blame. My main issue with this whole scenario is that I feel I did the right thing by purchasing drives that were shown as "compatible". You can hardly blame the consumer and expect them to foot the bill because you made a bad choice by showing them as compatible.

gkchamp: Was this gesture of goodwill a local store thing or a gesture from QNAP? I did ask them about perhaps taking my NAS and drives back (to help them fix the issue with a known, reproducible set of hardware) and that I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee for an upgrade to different drives and hardware and it was declined. All QNAP would do it refund the purchase price of my NAS. All well and good except I would still need to buy a new NAS and replace the drives out of my own money. Still quite an expensive exercise and I feel QNAP still wins. To be honest rather than take this option I'd rather bin the thing, tell people how terrible the whole situation has been handled by QNAP, cut my losses and buy a Synology with 4 new Hitachi's.

[criminala]

It's been going on for 18 months now. It's not going to be fixed. I sent them back my 412 and got upgraded to a 459 for virtually nothing. The 459 doesn't get the unplugged error, it just locks up and stops working. I swapped the hard drives out and no problems.

It's clearly a disk problem but Qnap had them on the recommended list for a while so it's up to them to compensate the people that bought them during this time. Get in contact with them and complain. That's what i did.

This is my biggest frustration! If I went out and purchased these drives knowing they were incompatible then honestly, I'd be annoyed but the only one to blame. My main issue with this whole scenario is that I feel I did the right thing by purchasing drives that were shown as "compatible". You can hardly blame the consumer and expect them to foot the bill because you made a bad choice by showing them as compatible.

gkchamp: Was this gesture of goodwill a local store thing or a gesture from QNAP? I did ask them about perhaps taking my NAS and drives back (to help them fix the issue with a known, reproducible set of hardware) and that I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee for an upgrade to different drives and hardware and it was declined. All QNAP would do it refund the purchase price of my NAS. All well and good except I would still need to buy a new NAS and replace the drives out of my own money. Still quite an expensive exercise and I feel QNAP still wins. To be honest rather than take this option I'd rather bin the thing, tell people how terrible the whole situation has been handled by QNAP, cut my losses and buy a Synology with 4 new Hitachi's.

Yes QNAP is handling this very poorly . I also bought the disks while they were on the recommended list .
And yes i also do tell all people i know how terrible qnap support/software updates is . The only thing that is good about hem is the hardware .
A friend of mine already bought a Synology on my advise . I envy him .

[Nitro182]

For everyone suffering this issue, QNAP Support is telling me that there is an issue with the backplane that is causing this issue but only for ST2000DL003 hard drives. They're telling me to send the unit back to the place of purchase to be swapped out.

My only problem is my retailer I purchased this from is no longer in business and QNAP advised me to talk to the distributor to claim warranty but according to their website they don't deal with the public, only retail stores. QNAP is also unwilling to help me directly, so looks I'm stuck with a lemon.

Never again QNAP. This is an expensive lesson learnt.

[gkchamp]

gkchamp: Was this gesture of goodwill a local store thing or a gesture from QNAP? I did ask them about perhaps taking my NAS and drives back (to help them fix the issue with a known, reproducible set of hardware) and that I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee for an upgrade to different drives and hardware and it was declined. All QNAP would do it refund the purchase price of my NAS. All well and good except I would still need to buy a new NAS and replace the drives out of my own money. Still quite an expensive exercise and I feel QNAP still wins. To be honest rather than take this option I'd rather bin the thing, tell people how terrible the whole situation has been handled by QNAP, cut my losses and buy a Synology with 4 new Hitachi's.

Hi Nitro

This was from Qnap as I was in contact with their support and asked them to escalate the issue. I payed about a quarter of the price to get a 459 and sent my 412 back for "testing". If Qnap don't offer you that i'd be tempted to take the full refund. Have you checked whether Synology has problems with these drives? If not just buy a Synology NAS with your refund and reuse the drives. It's really frustrating but that might be the best course of action.

I'm not upset that there is a problem, but it's the way a company reacts to that problem that matters. In my mind Qnap have reacted poorly and have and will lose customers over this.

[P3R]

My only problem is my retailer I purchased this from is no longer in business...

Yes that's a risk when only looking for the absolutely lowest prize...

...the distributor to claim warranty but according to their website they don't deal with the public, only retail stores.

Yes of course. All distributors need to have that or they would be totally overwhelmed by end user contacts.

Have you tried contacting them anyway, told them that Qnap recommended you to contact them and explained the situation with the now non-existant reseller and the failing product?

QNAP is also unwilling to help me directly, so looks I'm stuck with a lemon.

I would not give up so easily.

Qnap support probably neither have the authorization nor the time to do anything that isn't standard procedure but I'm sure that if you get hold of the right person within Qnap (maybe somebody from sales?), they can put pressure on the distributor if they refuse to help, or arrange for Qnap to help you directly.