UBER specification difference between Seagate NAS HDD (1/2/3/4TB) model

[unknown0]

Hello,

I found a difference of the UBER for Seagate NAS HDD 1/2/3/4 TB between the product spec and the product manual.

PDF obtained from here:
http://www.seagate.com/internal-hard-drives/nas-drives/nas-hdd/#specs

Spec: it is marked as 1 in 10^14 for 1/2/3/4 TB model
http://www.seagate.com/www-content/...dd-8tb-ds1789-5-1510DS1789-5-1510US-en_US.pdf

Product manual, it is marked as 1 in 10^15 for 1/2/3/4 TB model, check page 10.
http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/nas-fam/nas-hdd/en-us/docs/100724684f.pdf

I had contacted Seagate support. It seems they did not acknowledge it is a problem.
They only said error rate of 1 in 10^14 and 1 in 10^15 are both huge amount of data that is rare to happen.

 

[Stereodude]

Unless it's sold as an Enterprise drive I'd guess it's 1 in 10^14. I've never seen a 1 in 10^15 non-Enterprise drive.

The response from Seagate is laughable / pathetic...

 

[T_Minus]

The WD Red Pro are 10^15 and I don't consider those Enterprise drives, but some might

Some of the Enterprise SSD are 10^18 rather insane!@!

 

[unknown0]

To Stereodude:

For these two model (Seagate NAS 6TB and 8TB), the data sheet and prodcut manual said they had UBER with 1 in 10^15.
ST6000VN0021
ST8000VN0002

I am not sure if both document are both accurate.


To T_Minus:
For Red Pro, it is 1 in 10^14, it's tricky that WD/some other spec write in 10 in 10^15

Non-recoverable read errors per bits read <10 in 10^ 15

 

[Stereodude]

The WD Red Pro are 10^15 and I don't consider those Enterprise drives, but some might

No they're not.

They're listed as <10 in 10^15, which is not even close to the same thing as 1 in 10^15. I guess you could argue it's slightly better than 1 in 10^14, but...

 

[T_Minus]

Good catch, my brain memory left out the <