Thanks for the additional details, that helps, but there are still some critical gaps that prevent a proper diagnosis.

Two important points first:

The dmesg output needs to be complete, from boot until the moment the affected drive is first detected.
What you posted is cut short and misses the most important part: the SCSI/SAS negotiation, protection information handling, block size reporting, and any sense errors when the kernel first sees the disk.

Please reboot, then run as root or use sudo:

dmesg -T > dmesg-full.txt

1. Do not filter or truncate it. Upload the full file.

2. All diagnostic commands must be run with sudo/root, otherwise capabilities, mode pages, and protection features may not be visible or may be incomplete.

Specifically, please re-run and provide full output (verbatim) of the following, all with sudo or as root, on the problem drive and (if possible) on a working identical drive for comparison:

sudo lspci -nnkvv

sudo lsblk -o NAME,MODEL,SIZE,PHY-SeC,LOG-SeC,ROTA

sudo fdisk -l /dev/sdX

sudo sg_inq -vv /dev/sdX

sudo sg_readcap -ll /dev/sdX

sudo sg_modes -a /dev/sdX

sudo sg_vpd -a /dev/sdX

Replace /dev/sdX with the correct device name as it appears at that moment.

Why this matters:

• The Intel SATA controller you listed is not the LSI HBA. We need to see exactly which controller the drive is currently attached to and what features the kernel believes it supports.

• That Seagate model is a 520/528-capable SAS drive with DIF/T10 PI support. If it was formatted with protection enabled and is now attached to a controller/driver path that does not expect DIF, Linux will report I/O errors even though the drive itself is fine.

• sg_format -vv output alone does not tell us the current logical block size, protection type, or mode page state.

Important clarification:

• Formatting the drive under TrueNAS (with a proper SAS HBA) and then attaching it to a different system/controller is a very common way to trigger exactly this situation.

• This is still consistent with a recoverable configuration mismatch, not a permanently damaged disk.

Once we have:

• Full boot-time dmesg

• Root-level SCSI inquiry, mode pages, and read capacity

• Confirmation of which controller is actually in use

…it becomes possible to say concretely whether the drive needs:

• Reformatting to 512/4096 with protection disabled

• A controller that supports DIF

• Or if there is actual media or firmware failure (less likely)

At this point, the drive is “unusable”, not proven “bricked”. The missing data is the deciding factor.

One more important thing to verify, given the change of machines:

Please confirm whether the controller in the original TrueNAS system is the same type of LSI/Broadcom SAS HBA as the one in the current troubleshooting system.

This matters because:

DIF/T10 PI is handled by the HBA and driver, not just the drive.

A drive formatted with protection information on one controller may appear broken when moved to a different controller that does not support (or is not configured for) DIF.

Many onboard SATA/RAID controllers and some HBAs will enumerate a DIF-formatted drive but fail all I/O.

If the original TrueNAS machine used:

• A proper SAS HBA with DIF support

then the best recovery path may be to put the drive back into that original system and either:

• Reformat it there with protection disabled, or

• Access it normally if the controller and OS were already DIF-aware

If the original controller was different:

• Please provide lspci -nnkvv output from that system as well (using sudo or run as root)

• And confirm the exact HBA model and firmware used in the TrueNAS SAS controller

At the moment, the controller change introduces an unknown that can fully explain the symptoms by itself. Verifying controller parity between systems is necessary before assuming the drive itself is at fault.

(edit:)

One last thing, how long did you let sg_format run for?

It can take hours to complete one percent if the drive is large, probably a full day or more considering the capacity of your drive.

I was just wondering if it might have been cut short for some reason and just needs to be restarted on the original hardware to complete the process and bring the drive back online.

Can you really blame anyone who turns to AI, because that garbage at least sounds like it tries to help you?

A comfortable lie is still a lie. Everything that comes out of an LLM is a lie until proven otherwise. (“Lie” is a bit misleading, though, as they don’t have agency or intent: they’re a variation of your phone keyboard’s next-word text prediction algorithm. With added flattery and confidence.)

There’s a reason experienced people stress hard to others about not using them as shortcuts to your own knowledge. This is the outcome.

Another way to look at it is “trust, but verify”. If you’re intent on relying on probabilistic text as an answer, instead of bothering to learn, then take what it’s given you and verify what that does before doing it. You could learn to be an effective sloperator with just that common sense.

But if you’re going to give an LLM root/admin access to a production environment, then expect to be laughed at, because you had plenty of opportunities to not destroy something and actively chose not to use them.

Can you blame them?

Yes. LLMs don’t make anyone not responsible for their output.

If your dumb friend gave you bad advice and you followed it, you are ultimately still responsible for your decisions.