[SOLVED] uncorrectable sectors - Any hope?

[staney]

Hi guys,
I have a 6TB WD blue HDD in my Freenas server thats showing 11 Offline uncorrectable sectors and 17 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors.

I've put the disk into my Windows 7 machine (because I'm far more comfortable with W7) and reformatted and all seems ok, but when I put it back in the server the errors are back, obviously it uses a different scanning process

Is there anything I can do to save the Disk? I've already got the data off so thats not a problem, I just don't want to lose the physical disk if I can help it.

Cheers

 

[falcon291]

WD red/purple.

Red is better though, purple is made for surveillance systems, thus not as fast as Red.

 

[Karadjgne]

WD Red - WD Purple
Data transfer: 178MB/s - 210MB/s
Cache: 16MB to 256MB - 64MB to 256MB
Speed: 5,400 RPM - 5,400 RPM

Purple has faster transfer speeds than Red, same rotational speeds, and the smaller Tb drives have more cache.

How are Reds faster?

Reds, especially Red Pro, are built specifically for a Nas environment, everything from interior mechanisms to the controllers. Purple are designed for 100% continuous usage for the life of the drive, so have a lot of the same design features Reds do. Could also use Gold as those are built for server/enterprise use.

 

[staney]

Are Seagate Ironwolf's any good Compared to WD Red? I can 6TB for £70 cheaper them WDs

 

[Karadjgne]

Both the WD Red and the Seagate IronWolf are specially developed for NAS. Both brands use the same technologies to make your drive last longer, keep it from heating too much, make it save money, and make it vibrate less when writing and reading files. That's why there are more similarities than differences. For example, the Seagate IronWolf is faster, but it uses a little more energy. If you have a Synology NAS, you'll maintain your Seagate drive's condition using the Seagate IronWolf Health Management software. The WD Red, on the other hand, is slower, but more economical and hence somewhat more reliable. With a WD Red, you're choosing a decent and reliable drive, whereas with a Seagate IronWolf, you're choosing a powerhouse.

The IronWolf would be considered an in between drive, sorta in between a WD Red and a WD Red Pro. But you are dealing with competing manufacturers so currently the Seagate is cheaper, on sale, discounted, whereas that will change sooner or later and the WD Red might be $70 cheaper. So pricing is not really a good indicator of better or worse.

 

[staney]

The IronWolf would be considered an in between drive, sorta in between a WD Red and a WD Red Pro. But you are dealing with competing manufacturers so currently the Seagate is cheaper, on sale, discounted, whereas that will change sooner or later and the WD Red might be $70 cheaper. So pricing is not really a good indicator of better or worse.

OK Thanks. yeah I just meant if its not a massively rubbish drive I might as well get the cheaper one.

 

[SkyNetRising]

Well - since last 2x 3TB Seagate drives died on me, I'm not buying Seagate anytime soon.
But you can try your luck.

 

[Karadjgne]

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/seagate-ironwolf-12tb-hdd,5276.html

Wonder if that's why that particular Seagate is cheaper than the WD, might be the older series. £70 is a lot of difference comparatively. Linus also uses the IronWolf in his massive servers I believe, has over 100 of them, might be Pro series, not sure. If the Seagates were really bad, I would like to think he'd have said something by now.

Drive failure can happen to any drive, anytime, the better the drive, the lower the chance, but none are infallible. I've had Hitachi last for years and WD Black fail in 2 months and Toshiba that survived me dropping the pc off the desk (totally freak accident involving a fresh 24oz of coffee and my cat)