New Seagate Ironwolf 4TB HDD shows more than 40 sectors >500ms in Verify test

[darknezx]

I have bought a Seagate 4TB Ironwolf HDD to replace my previous WD Blue which had a lot of slow sectors, but it seems like no matter how many times I run Read tests using HDDScan there'd be 1 sector that's >500ms. This is a screenshot of the Read test result.



I'm 38% in on my Verify test and there are about 40 sectors of >500ms.



Is this normal?

It feels really frustrating why this has happened twice in a row, and Ironwolf is supposedly a better quality line of drives under Seagate. For what it's worth, this drive passes Seatools long generic. But I'm not sure if I can trust Seatools.

 

[Automata]

If the drive was busy doing another operation, it can cause the test to slow down.

Post the SMART data for the drive. It will give a better indication if something is wrong.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

Reminds me of when I was testing used Seagate HDDs 14 years ago or close to there. They did seem to have a strong tendency of having slow-sector-syndrome.

But I didn't have that problem out-of-the-box with my Barracuda 7200.12 500 GB. Same with a later 7K 500 GB Barracuda, with the model code ST DMxxx.

Also, in the past, I didn't trust SeaTools or whatever Seagate called their own testing tool. IIRC, I was using MHDD to test HDDs. And their U-series (long discontinued, BTW) seemed to be the worst for slow sectors.

 

[darknezx]

If the drive was busy doing another operation, it can cause the test to slow down.

Post the SMART data for the drive. It will give a better indication if something is wrong.

Thanks for the advice, these are the SMART details:



I didn't use the disk though, it's still empty.

 

[Automata]

If that is a new disk, return it or get a replacement through the store. Only RMA the drive if it is outside the return window.

Read Error Rate and Seek Error Rate should be "0" for the raw value (and 100 for Current/Worst). This indicates the hard drive is having trouble reading data from the disk, likely from the seek arm not being in the right position. Even if the manufacturer's tool says the drive is "OK", it absolutely is not and will likely degrade quickly.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

If that is a new disk, return it or get a replacement through the store. Only RMA the drive if it is outside the return window.

Read Error Rate and Seek Error Rate should be "0" for the raw value (and 100 for Current/Worst). This indicates the hard drive is having trouble reading data from the disk, likely from the seek arm not being in the right position. Even if the manufacturer's tool says the drive is "OK", it absolutely is not and will likely degrade quickly.

Warning: Seagates normally display lots of numbers for the raw value of "Read Error Rate"! Likely the same for "Seek Error Rate"!

 

[Automata]

Warning: Seagates normally display lots of numbers for the raw value of "Read Error Rate"! Likely the same for "Seek Error Rate"!

Do you have a source or explanation? I know vendors can use whatever attributes they want, but these are common and standard ones. Even ignoring the "raw value", the "Worst" field should be 100 on a new and functional drive.

The fact there are long access times on a new unused disk, plus SMART data showing seek and read problems (which would cause the results in the first post) line up too much to be a coincidence.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

Do you have a source or explanation? I know vendors can use whatever attributes they want, but these are common and standard ones. Even ignoring the "raw value", the "Worst" field should be 100 on a new and functional drive.

The fact there are long access times on a new unused disk, plus SMART data showing seek and read problems (which would cause the results in the first post) line up too much to be a coincidence.

Based on testing every single Seagate HDD, including brand new ones with no sign of imminent failure. Also it looks like out there, some know about that quirk.

 

[darknezx]

Do you have a source or explanation? I know vendors can use whatever attributes they want, but these are common and standard ones. Even ignoring the "raw value", the "Worst" field should be 100 on a new and functional drive.

The fact there are long access times on a new unused disk, plus SMART data showing seek and read problems (which would cause the results in the first post) line up too much to be a coincidence.

For some reason the SMART values changed, now read error rate is 65 64 44:



Strange that it suddenly fell from 100 to 65.

 

[Automata]

Strange that it suddenly fell from 100 to 65.

It isn't strange for a failing drive.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

Yep, that HDD needs to go back!

TMK, on Seagate HDDs performing well, I get numerous raw values for the attributes I mentioned, but without the attribute numbers plunging like that!

 

[darknezx]

Thanks everyone, this was an unfortunate case after I bought a refurbished or failing WD Blue off Amazon a few weeks ago (return is pending). Never thought lightning would strike twice. I gave Seagate a call and they said that they've seen a lot of shops selling refurbished or defective stuff, so they said to only buy from them directly to be sure that it's a new drive. I've started the process for a refund.