Seagate ST31500341AS 1.5TB

egoldy wrote:
I purchased 4 1TB drives and am trying to hot swap them in. Per the instructions, I've pushed the button after opening the door, but the "gate doesn't swing open" Can someone me how hard to push that button to make the gate "pop open" so I can remove one of the drives to remove it? I've tried it on all the drives and they all don't "pop" I don't understand why.. Help!

Yeah, the directions are a load of crap. That button never worked. :lol:

You have to follow the emergency unlock procedure using a thumb tack. I keep one next to the ReadyNAS 24/7.

phrozen wrote:
You have to follow the emergency unlock procedure using a thumb tack. I keep one next to the ReadyNAS 24/7.

Also, it's not even the "first" emergency unlock procedure where you stick the thumb tack into the button hole. That doesn't work either. I always have to put it in the third vent hole and pull it down. They describe it somewhere on the wiki or FAQ....

You pulling my leg here?

What WIKI or FAQ are you referring to?

Stick a thumbtack in the hole of the button (of the third drive?) and then what?

How hard do you have to push ?
For one of the other Netgear routers, I did see something about sticking a paperclip in a similar "hole" and tried that earlier (lightly) and nothing... I didn't push HARD though..

There's not a video on youtube or something to point to is there?

I just don't want to F' this sucker up !

Thanks..

egoldy wrote:

You pulling my leg here? What WIKI or FAQ are you referring to? Stick a thumbtack in the hole of the button (of the third drive?) and then what? How hard do you have to push ? For one of the other Netgear routers, I did see something about sticking a paperclip in a similar "hole" and tried that earlier (lightly) and nothing... I didn't push HARD though.. There's not a video on youtube or something to point to is there? I just don't want to F' this **** up ! Thanks..

You don't push. It is insert and then pull down. I think I use the the hole slightly to the left of the "B" arrows. It is really easy once you get the hang of it.
viewtopic.php?p=30550#p30550

I just replaced Drive 1 (the one that keeps generating sector allocation errors, now almost daily--was up to 41 today) with one of the drives I received from Amazon. Frontview shows its resyncing, but it doesn't tell me how long it will take. I've used 38% of the 4,168 GB (X-RAID). Hopefully, it will be done by morning so I can replace Drive 4, which as only generated one sector allocation error (NewEgg has already given me an RMA for drives 1 and 4).

iProb8 wrote:

I just replaced Drive 1 (the one that keeps generating sector allocation errors, now almost daily--was up to 41 today) with one of the drives I received from Amazon. Frontview shows its resyncing, but it doesn't tell me how long it will take. I've used 38% of the 4,168 GB (X-RAID). Hopefully, it will be done by morning so I can replace Drive 4, which as only generated one sector allocation error (NewEgg has already given me an RMA for drives 1 and 4).

Let me know when you RMA the drives if you get back a drive with a 3 year warranty or a 5 year warranty... I'm debating returning my drive with 1 reallocated sector, but concerned I'll lose the 5 year warranty.

phrozen wrote:
Let me know when you RMA the drives if you get back a drive with a 3 year warranty or a 5 year warranty... I'm debating returning my drive with 1 reallocated sector, but concerned I'll lose the 5 year warranty.

I really don't see how its worth returning a drive with one reallocated sector. You could play that game for a while before getting a drive that stays at zero. Its just not an indication likely drive failure so stick with it.

mattkime wrote:
I really don't see how its worth returning a drive with one reallocated sector. You could play that game for a while before getting a drive that stays at zero. Its just not an indication likely drive failure so stick with it.

Is that a change because of the way modern drives work? On all the other hard drives I have owned, even a single reallocated sector was indication that it was going to soon completely fail. But, I understand the logic that there could be a single reallocated sector or even a few that doesn't indicate drive failure. Particularly as the size of the magnetic domains decreases (density increases), the possibility of a microscopic defect in the platter increases....

Hmm... Except there is already a ton of error correction before the level of reallocated sectors.

eh, I don't really know....

phrozen wrote:

mattkime wrote: I really don't see how its worth returning a drive with one reallocated sector. You could play that game for a while before getting a drive that stays at zero. Its just not an indication likely drive failure so stick with it. Is that a change because of the way modern drives work? On all the other hard drives I have owned, even a single reallocated sector was indication that it was going to soon completely fail. But, I understand the logic that there could be a single reallocated sector or even a few that doesn't indicate drive failure. Particularly as the size of the magnetic domains decreases (density increases), the possibility of a microscopic defect in the platter increases.... Hmm... Except there is already a ton of error correction before the level of reallocated sectors. eh, I don't really know....

Here's a very interesting Google study on the subject:

Google wrote:

Our results confirm the findings of previous smaller population studies that suggest that some of the SMART parameters are well-correlated with higher failure probabilities. We find, for example, that after their first scan error, drives are 39 times more likely to fail within 60 days than drives with no such errors. First errors in reallocations, offline reallocations, and probational counts are also strongly correlated to higher failure probabilities. Despite those strong correlations, we find that failure prediction models based on SMART parameters alone are likely to be severely limited in their prediction accuracy, given that a large fraction of our failed drives have shown no SMART error signals whatsoever. This result suggests that SMART models are more useful in predicting trends for large aggregate populations than for individual components. It also suggests that powerful predictive models need to make use of signals beyond those provided by SMART.

Here's the link for the entire paper: http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf

i'm taking that as the weakest possible endorsement of the correlation between sector reallocations and failure.