NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Seagate ST2000DL003-9VT166
All, I have a readynas Ultra 4 with (3) 2TB Seagate ST2000DL003-9VT166 -302 drives in it. I have firmware CC3C that came with the drives. I have read the issues people have had with these drives. I...
Same kind of problem for me with my Ready NAS Ultra 6.
During one year and an half I have the following X-RAID2 disk configuration: two Samsung HD154UI (FW ?), three Segeate ST2000DL003-9VT166-301 (FW CC32) an one Samsung HD203WI (FW 1AN10003). The Raidiator version is the x86 4.21.
The last week, I bought two Seagate ST2000DM001-9YN164 (FW CC4H) to extend my storage space. I go for a one year postdoc tomorrow at the other side of the world and my NAS capacity was a bit small to backup and store all my previous work.
Starting here, it's the drama.
1) The first remplacement of one of the HD154UI goes well, but during the reconstruction of the second one, a ST2000DL003-9VT166 has been annoced as dead.
2) The testing of all drives with Seatool (Samsung was bougth by Segate last year) is OK.
3) The reinsertion of the last removed HD154UI allows me to access to data again after a resynchronisation, but the NAS appaers in unprotected state in the readyNas status beside the fact that none of the drives is marked as dead.
4) I try again to put my second ST2000DM001-9YN164 (formated and partition table destroyed) in place of the HD154UI and as soon as the drive is mounted, the same ST2000DL003-9VT166 is annonced as dead
Then I do a factory reset with the two Seagate ST2000DM001-9YN164, three Segeate ST2000DL003-9VT166 (FW CC32) an one Samsung HD203WI, update to the lastest Raidiator version published (x86 4.22). No problem appears anymore.
At this moment, I think it OK, I just have the time to copy the data dispatched on many drives before my fly. But according to the Murffy law, a new problem must appear: this night, I have got a ST2000DL003-9VT166 declared dead (a different one this time) during the copy. I restart the NAS and now the resynchronisation runs. I think no error will be found and I can continue copy data until the next fake death of a ST2000DL003-9VT166, but I do not have time anymore to play with that.
Here is my current experiment with those disks. A curious thing I have noted during this experiment is that I never have error when my NAS contains different disk size (2*1.5To+4*2To or 1*1.5To+5*2To)
During one year and an half I have the following X-RAID2 disk configuration: two Samsung HD154UI (FW ?), three Segeate ST2000DL003-9VT166-301 (FW CC32) an one Samsung HD203WI (FW 1AN10003). The Raidiator version is the x86 4.21.
The last week, I bought two Seagate ST2000DM001-9YN164 (FW CC4H) to extend my storage space. I go for a one year postdoc tomorrow at the other side of the world and my NAS capacity was a bit small to backup and store all my previous work.
Starting here, it's the drama.
1) The first remplacement of one of the HD154UI goes well, but during the reconstruction of the second one, a ST2000DL003-9VT166 has been annoced as dead.
2) The testing of all drives with Seatool (Samsung was bougth by Segate last year) is OK.
3) The reinsertion of the last removed HD154UI allows me to access to data again after a resynchronisation, but the NAS appaers in unprotected state in the readyNas status beside the fact that none of the drives is marked as dead.
4) I try again to put my second ST2000DM001-9YN164 (formated and partition table destroyed) in place of the HD154UI and as soon as the drive is mounted, the same ST2000DL003-9VT166 is annonced as dead
Then I do a factory reset with the two Seagate ST2000DM001-9YN164, three Segeate ST2000DL003-9VT166 (FW CC32) an one Samsung HD203WI, update to the lastest Raidiator version published (x86 4.22). No problem appears anymore.
At this moment, I think it OK, I just have the time to copy the data dispatched on many drives before my fly. But according to the Murffy law, a new problem must appear: this night, I have got a ST2000DL003-9VT166 declared dead (a different one this time) during the copy. I restart the NAS and now the resynchronisation runs. I think no error will be found and I can continue copy data until the next fake death of a ST2000DL003-9VT166, but I do not have time anymore to play with that.
Here is my current experiment with those disks. A curious thing I have noted during this experiment is that I never have error when my NAS contains different disk size (2*1.5To+4*2To or 1*1.5To+5*2To)
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
