Seagate drive model # and serial# don't match. ST1000DM003

[Bob F]

I just received a warrantee replacement drive for my dead ST1000DM003. The
Replacement was a ST31000528AS refurb. which doesn't meet the same specs as the
origional. Seagate told me that my drive serial# shows up on their system as
the same specs as the replacement drive, not as a SATA 3, 64MB cache drive like
the ST1000DM003.They had no suggestion as to how this could be, but assured me
the replacement met the same specs as my origional.

Has anyone else out there run into this situation?

 

[Paul]

I just received a warrantee replacement drive for my dead ST1000DM003. The
Replacement was a ST31000528AS refurb. which doesn't meet the same specs as the
origional. Seagate told me that my drive serial# shows up on their system as
the same specs as the replacement drive, not as a SATA 3, 64MB cache drive like
the ST1000DM003.They had no suggestion as to how this could be, but assured me
the replacement met the same specs as my origional.

Has anyone else out there run into this situation?

I don't really think it matters what happened to anyone else.

You sent in a ST1000DM003, the drive is not that old, and
you should be getting one back. Not a drive which is two
generations older.

In some scenarios, the old drive might actually be better
(small file transfers). But again, that's not the point.
The point is, it's a warranty claim, not a used car lot.

http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/desktop/Barracuda 7200.12/100529369b.pdf
http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/docs/manual/desktop/Barracuda 7200.14/100686584d.pdf

ST31000528AS ST1000DM003
7200.12 series 7200.14 (using web URL)

1000GB 1000GB
Heads 4 Heads 2
Discs 2 Discs 1
Bytes per sector 512 BPS 4096 with 512e emulation
Speed 7200 RPM 7200 RPM
Sustained data transfer (outside) 125MB/sec 156MB/sec
Cache 32MB Cache 64MB
Height 26.1mm (1.028 inch) Height 20.2mm (0.78 inch)
Average seek read 8.5ms Average seek read 8.5ms
Average seek write 9.5ms Average seek write 9.5ms
(Cable rate SATA II) (Cable rate SATA III)

Spec-wise, they're not even close to being the same. And I'm
not referring to the SATA II versus SATA III thing either.
That part is irrelevant. The 156MB/sec versus 125MB/sec
and being two generations apart, says they're not the same.

Only the capacity is the same.

In my experience here, with 512e drives, I find them less predictable
on how they'll work in real transfer scenarios. Sometimes, a 512
drive will beat them. A 512 drive doesn't do emulation, so no
read-modify-write shenanigans using the cache. This is important
for a WinXP user, less so for a Windows 8 user.

On large sequential transfers, the newer drive might complete
those in less time. But ever since 512e has come out, I've had
multiple drives that behaved "strange". And didn't work right.
So from that perspective, the 528AS might even be a win.

But this is a simple warranty issue, not a used car lot.

If they don't have a ST1000DM003 to ship, they
can ship a ST1500DM003 or a ST2000DM003 Tell them
"they have the same specs, and are the same generation of drive"
Thrown their notion of "the same", back in their face. Send
in a 156MB/sec drive, get a 156MB/sec drive back as a replacement.

Maybe you could try small claims court. Or something similar.

*******

There is supposed to be a web page, for doing warranty serial
number checks on drives. If you can find that, enter the serial number
and see if other details populate with ST1000DM003 or not.
If so, tell them to "try again, dummies". And insist on
a 156MB/sec (i.e. same generation) of drive. I'm sure
they have refurb ST1000DM003 sitting there. They should
have a *huge* bone pile to choose from. They're Seagate.

Paul

 

[Bob F]

I don't really think it matters what happened to anyone else.

You sent in a ST1000DM003, the drive is not that old, and
you should be getting one back. Not a drive which is two
generations older.

In some scenarios, the old drive might actually be better
(small file transfers). But again, that's not the point.
The point is, it's a warranty claim, not a used car lot.

http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/desktop/Barracuda 7200.12/100529369b.pdf
http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/docs/manual/desktop/Barracuda 7200.14/100686584d.pdf

ST31000528AS ST1000DM003
7200.12 series 7200.14 (using web
URL)
1000GB 1000GB
Heads 4 Heads 2
Discs 2 Discs 1
Bytes per sector 512 BPS 4096 with 512e
emulation Speed 7200 RPM 7200 RPM
Sustained data transfer (outside) 125MB/sec 156MB/sec
Cache 32MB Cache 64MB
Height 26.1mm (1.028 inch) Height 20.2mm (0.78
inch) Average seek read 8.5ms Average seek
read 8.5ms Average seek write 9.5ms Average
seek write 9.5ms (Cable rate SATA II) (Cable rate
SATA III)
Spec-wise, they're not even close to being the same. And I'm
not referring to the SATA II versus SATA III thing either.
That part is irrelevant. The 156MB/sec versus 125MB/sec
and being two generations apart, says they're not the same.

Only the capacity is the same.

In my experience here, with 512e drives, I find them less predictable
on how they'll work in real transfer scenarios. Sometimes, a 512
drive will beat them. A 512 drive doesn't do emulation, so no
read-modify-write shenanigans using the cache. This is important
for a WinXP user, less so for a Windows 8 user.

On large sequential transfers, the newer drive might complete
those in less time. But ever since 512e has come out, I've had
multiple drives that behaved "strange". And didn't work right.
So from that perspective, the 528AS might even be a win.

But this is a simple warranty issue, not a used car lot.

If they don't have a ST1000DM003 to ship, they
can ship a ST1500DM003 or a ST2000DM003 Tell them
"they have the same specs, and are the same generation of drive"
Thrown their notion of "the same", back in their face. Send
in a 156MB/sec drive, get a 156MB/sec drive back as a replacement.

Maybe you could try small claims court. Or something similar.

*******

There is supposed to be a web page, for doing warranty serial
number checks on drives. If you can find that, enter the serial number
and see if other details populate with ST1000DM003 or not.
If so, tell them to "try again, dummies". And insist on
a 156MB/sec (i.e. same generation) of drive. I'm sure
they have refurb ST1000DM003 sitting there. They should
have a *huge* bone pile to choose from. They're Seagate.

Seagate tells me the serial# I sent them shows the specs for the drive they sent
me. They seemed to have no comments to my statement that the drive I have says
on the label "ST1000DM003", and that their own web site says that drive is
SATA3, 64MB cache, which the one they sent me is not. I talked to 2 people there
and got basically the same story. It is as if they shipped ST1000DM003 drives
that were not up to the currently advertised specs although they wouldn't
actually say that. So should I call again and escalate to a higher level?

 

[VanguardLH]

NOTE: ALL newsgroups to which Bob posted were off-topic. Replacing a
hard drive is not an overclocking issue nor an issue with Windows XP (an
operating system, not hardware). No newsgroups are proper (on-topic)
for a reply. Since Bob's post was spotted in the Windows XP newsgroup
then that is where I will reply (and not to the other cross-posted
off-topic and also UNRELATED newsgroups).

Original newsgroups:
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking - This is not an overclocking issue.
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general - Also not a Windows XP issue.

A proper venue for Bob's post would've been in hardware newsgroup(s).

Seagate tells me the serial# I sent them shows the specs for the drive
they sent me. They seemed to have no comments to my statement that
the drive I have says on the label "ST1000DM003", and that their own
web site says that drive is SATA3, 64MB cache, which the one they
sent me is not. I talked to 2 people there and got basically the same
story. It is as if they shipped ST1000DM003 drives that were not up
to the currently advertised specs although they wouldn't actually say
that. So should I call again and escalate to a higher level?

The drive "you have". You still have the ST1000DM003 drive? Then how
do you know for sure that the drive you sent them was the same as the
one you still have? Did you take pics of the drive you sent them for
replacement or record its label data? Did you not have to ship them the
failed hard drive and instead they sent you out a replacement with no
actual physical return of the bad drive?

If you shipped them the defective drive, maybe you thought you had 2
identical hard drives but did not and the one you sent it was the older
and thicker SATA-2 model.

Still have the serial number you gave them? If so, go to their support
page at http://www.seagate.com/support/warranty-and-replacements/, begin
an RMA, enter the serial number, and see what model they match up with
that serial number. I don't have a Seagate drive to enter a serial
number to see if their next dialog shows the model number for the
inputted serial number.

 

[Bob F]

NOTE: ALL newsgroups to which Bob posted were off-topic. Replacing a
hard drive is not an overclocking issue nor an issue with Windows XP
(an operating system, not hardware). No newsgroups are proper
(on-topic) for a reply. Since Bob's post was spotted in the Windows
XP newsgroup then that is where I will reply (and not to the other
cross-posted off-topic and also UNRELATED newsgroups).

Original newsgroups:
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking - This is not an overclocking issue.
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general - Also not a Windows XP issue.

A proper venue for Bob's post would've been in hardware newsgroup(s).

I looked for groups related to Hard drives or seagate and found nothing. These 2
groups are ones I see activity in that I knew there might be people with similar
experience. So sorry if you are so offended, but I have at least gotten some
useful contents.

The drive "you have". You still have the ST1000DM003 drive? Then how
do you know for sure that the drive you sent them was the same as the
one you still have? Did you take pics of the drive you sent them for
replacement or record its label data? Did you not have to ship them
the failed hard drive and instead they sent you out a replacement
with no actual physical return of the bad drive?

I still have the drive. I paid an extra $9.95 to have them pre-ship a
replacement and a return pre-paid shipping label, which I have 25 days to return
to them.

If you shipped them the defective drive, maybe you thought you had 2
identical hard drives but did not and the one you sent it was the
older and thicker SATA-2 model.

The failed drive is somewhat thinner than the replacement.

Still have the serial number you gave them? If so, go to their
support page at
http://www.seagate.com/support/warranty-and-replacements/, begin an
RMA, enter the serial number, and see what model they match up with
that serial number. I don't have a Seagate drive to enter a serial
number to see if their next dialog shows the model number for the
inputted serial number.

The drive they referenced in their email OKing the replacement referred to it as
a ST310005N1A1AS-RK. Looking at that # on newegg reviews suggests somewhat
questionable heritage and quality.

"The advertised pictures seen on NE refer to the old ST310005N1A1AS-RK 32MB
which I purchased in 2012.
What I just received is the new ST310005N1A1AS-RK 64MB and none of the pictures
of the retail box match what is advertised. Yes it does have a sticker on the
back of the box stating "ST310005N1A1AS-RK " . When you open the box you will
not find a Model ST3100052SAS 32MB Cashe.
What you get is the Model ST1000DM003 64 MB Cache which has Advanced Format and
4 K sectors."

 

[VanguardLH]

I looked for groups related to Hard drives or seagate and found nothing. These 2
groups are ones I see activity in that I knew there might be people with similar
experience. So sorry if you are so offended, but I have at least gotten some
useful contents.

Hardware newsgroups (not exhaustive):
alt.comp.hardware
alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
alt.computer
alt.computers
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
and even
microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware

The drive they referenced in their email OKing the replacement
referred to it as a ST310005N1A1AS-RK. Looking at that # on newegg
reviews suggests somewhat questionable heritage and quality.

Call them up again to say you didn't get a correct replacement. SATA-2
3Gbps drive is NOT a same-spec replacement for a SATA-3 6Gbps drive.
Then there is the loss in buffer size from 64MB to 32MB (be careful,
though, as I see the one you have came in 32MB and 64MB versions).

"The advertised pictures seen on NE refer to the old
ST310005N1A1AS-RK 32MB which I purchased in 2012. What I just
received is the new ST310005N1A1AS-RK 64MB and none of the pictures
of the retail box match what is advertised. Yes it does have a
sticker on the back of the box stating "ST310005N1A1AS-RK " . When
you open the box you will not find a Model ST3100052SAS 32MB Cashe.
What you get is the Model ST1000DM003 64 MB Cache which has Advanced
Format and 4 K sectors."

Newegg is pretty good about accepting returns on items that are
mislabelled on the box. They still sell the ST1000DM003 hard drive
(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148840) so
Seagate is still producing them.

As for Seagate, their support reps are sometimes a bit dense. I had a
drive with a 5-year warranty. The rep asked if I had my sales receipt
to show that I bought it within the last 5 years. Nope, didn't have it.
Rep was about to end the call. I asked the rep just how long Seagate
had been manufacturing these particular drives. I knew this was a new
model. He said 3 years. "So", I said, "then EVERYONE that owns this
drive is within the 5-year warranty period, aren't they?" He couldn't
counter that argument and agreed to do an RMA on it.

 

[Paul]

I looked for groups related to Hard drives or seagate and found nothing. These 2
groups are ones I see activity in that I knew there might be people with similar
experience. So sorry if you are so offended, but I have at least gotten some
useful contents.


I still have the drive. I paid an extra $9.95 to have them pre-ship a
replacement and a return pre-paid shipping label, which I have 25 days to return
to them.


The failed drive is somewhat thinner than the replacement.

The drive they referenced in their email OKing the replacement referred to it as
a ST310005N1A1AS-RK. Looking at that # on newegg reviews suggests somewhat
questionable heritage and quality.

"The advertised pictures seen on NE refer to the old ST310005N1A1AS-RK 32MB
which I purchased in 2012.
What I just received is the new ST310005N1A1AS-RK 64MB and none of the pictures
of the retail box match what is advertised. Yes it does have a sticker on the
back of the box stating "ST310005N1A1AS-RK " . When you open the box you will
not find a Model ST3100052SAS 32MB Cashe.
What you get is the Model ST1000DM003 64 MB Cache which has Advanced Format and
4 K sectors."

There is a posting from 2008 with that part number ST310005N1A1AS-RK in it.
I'm surprised there would still be a warranty on it, if the part number was
being used five years ago.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/245241-32-seagate-st310005n1a1as-st31000340as

I think your "somewhat questionable heritage", nails it. Maybe this is
part of the sale of refurbs to fill shipments during the "flood event".
Half of the stock on Newegg was refurbs, during the "flood". That's why
I feel these disk drive companies must have huge bone-piles of drives,
out in back of the building, to be able to do that.

Paul

 

[philo]

I just received a warrantee replacement drive for my dead ST1000DM003. The
Replacement was a ST31000528AS refurb. which doesn't meet the same specs as the
origional. Seagate told me that my drive serial# shows up on their system as
the same specs as the replacement drive, not as a SATA 3, 64MB cache drive like
the ST1000DM003.They had no suggestion as to how this could be, but assured me
the replacement met the same specs as my origional.

Has anyone else out there run into this situation?

If the drive was factory mislabeled that means you probably did get back
the identical drive as the one you sent in ...however you originally
PAID for the better of the two drives.

I'd be sure to point out that you want a replacement for the drive you
paid for originally and that if they mis-labeled it the fault was on
their end , not yours.

 

[Bob F]

Scan the drive label and include a graphic of said label in the
written communication with SeaGate.

I'm thinking now that this was a newer drive substituted for another in a "kit",
and marked in their system as the lesser drive for warrantee purposes. I don't
know it's history, as it was in a recently acquired security camera DVR. So I
may just accept what I got and live with it.

 

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bob F wrote:
[snip]

It is as if they shipped ST1000DM003 drives that were not up
to the currently advertised specs although they wouldn't actually say
that.

Interestingly when I got my ST1000DM003 from Amazon I read the customer
reviews and it seems that Seagate *are* (or were) re-labeling their older
drives and selling them as new generation.

This page / review is mostly about the 2TB version but does cover the others
in the Seagate '1TB / platter' range:

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barra...dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

So you see it's entirely possible that you in fact *did* have an older gen
drive to start with! :-(

That's one of the reasons I went for the 1TB drive - it's much thinner so
there's no way they can give you a two-platter drive in it's stead. Was your
drive thin? They if it were could however still give you a drive with
different cache etc. than you thought you were paying for. I am a Seagate
man, have been ever since I got burned with the WD 'Green' drives (and since
with USB external drives that can't even saturate a USB 2 bus, yet alone USB
3) - However this sort of thing worries me.....

(I seriously dislike crossposting and usually remove it. This one time I'll
let it stand as I'm reading from overclocking.)
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]