Yeah, thought that might be one difference. I didn't need the extra MTBF, but most here probably will.C isn't 24/7 duty cycle, for one.
Even though they (supposedly) were only used for "[less than 400 hours light use] for software compatibility testing," they're still used. HDDs are like cars, take em' for a spin and they're immediately worth half as much. I, and I'm sure many others, won't trust data to used HDDs (even with proper backups, because restoring takes time). That, and I like to be 100% sure I'm getting the full warranty period when I purchase drives.Hm... and I thought this was an outstanding deal... maybe people don't do 5TB drives?
I have, though I'm not entirely sure about the truth of it. I know surveillance drives are very write-optimized, though. The firmware intelligently keeps the head in the "right" place to write streaming data to the disk.Has anyone heard this or are concerned about it?
I looked up some of this when I saw this post, and did not find any credible source to verify the claim that the surveillance disks should perform fewer integrity checks.I have a concern about using purpose build Surveillance / Video drives for data. I remember reading something to the effect of "Don't use Surveillance / Video drive for data because the firmware has been optimized for mostly write AND to possibly keep writing in case of errors (and not spend to much time to recover errors ). The theory was something like this, if during a video recording a few pixels/frames are lost here and there no big deal as long as all video streams keep being recorded. This would be a GOOD feature on a VIDEO drive. But in a DATA drive I want my drive firmware to prioritize data INTEGRITY. Has anyone heard this or are concerned about it?