# Using a seagate surveillance sv35.5 hd for a standard PC?



## tostator (Oct 19, 2009)

Hello friends.

I'm building a PC intended for 24/7 use, mainly with p2p programs.
I've read of this hd http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/sv35_series/sv35.5/, designed for 27/7 operations for surveillance systems...
What do you think? Is it a good choice for a standard windows XP aplications like office, photoshop and p2p? Performance is not a important factor in this pc.

It is cheaper than the 7200.11 and 7200.12 series.

Thanks in advance!!!


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 19, 2009)

Seems like it would be fine.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 19, 2009)

I tried a few of these right on release and switched right back to using RE3's...
I had 4 fail withing 6 months of probably 30 out the door.

Don't know what's different about them or how they will hold up in a desktop environment.


----------



## tostator (Oct 19, 2009)

4 fails? 
RE3 are more expensive...

thanks anyway


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 19, 2009)

tostator said:


> RE3 are more expensive...



After having 2 RE2 drives of the 3 I bought fail in less than 4 months, I'm not buying WD's RAID Edition crap again.  I'll buy a standard desktop drive before a RE.


----------



## I see SPY! (Oct 19, 2009)

niko084 said:


> I tried a few of these right on release and switched right back to using RE3's...
> I had 4 fail withing 6 months of probably 30 out the door.
> 
> Don't know what's different about them or how they will hold up in a desktop environment.



Maybe they had this this problem? So many were affected by it... including me. Damned Seagate  Don't care how good you may be or that these kinds of accidents happen to everyone, but I'll never buy from you again.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 19, 2009)

I see SPY! said:


> Maybe they had this this problem? So many were affected by it... including me. Damned Seagate  Don't care how good you may be or that these kinds of accidents happen to everyone, but I'll never buy from you again.



Had 3 drives affect by that, simple firmware flash fixed it, didn't even loose any data.  It really wasn't a big issue.  The big issue came about when everyone that had a 7200.11 drive assumed the new firmware was required for their drive, without actually checking, and they all started flashing the fixed firmware to drives that didn't require it, and were actually not compatibile with it.  The whole fiasco was caused more by users stupidity than by faulty drive, the number of faulty drives was actually pretty low.


----------



## I see SPY! (Oct 19, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Had 3 drives affect by that, simple firmware flash fixed it, didn't even loose any data.  It really wasn't a big issue.  The big issue came about when everyone that had a 7200.11 drive assumed the new firmware was required for their drive, without actually checking, and they all started flashing the fixed firmware to drives that didn't require it, and were actually not compatibile with it.  The whole fiasco was caused more by users stupidity than by faulty drive, the number of faulty drives was actually pretty low.



Is that so? Sad to hear then. In my case I only knew AFTER it bricked 
But anyway, according to the numbers that were talked, the failure affected a high percentage of the drives. It was like what, 30%?


----------



## tostator (Oct 19, 2009)

I owned a 7200.11 hd affected with that issue. I was able to "reset" the drive and backup my data and return it to the wholeseller. I change it for a 7200.10 drive.

Well, I hope not to have problems with the sv35.5...

Thanks!


----------



## niko084 (Oct 19, 2009)

I see SPY! said:


> Maybe they had this this problem? So many were affected by it... including me. Damned Seagate  Don't care how good you may be or that these kinds of accidents happen to everyone, but I'll never buy from you again.



No, these were released after that issue was resolved. I had nearly 75-80 drives ES2's fail during that mess..

As for the RE2, yes those drives were a royal pain and had a lot of issues, let alone they are slow... 

The RE3's I have probably 100 of them out and have had 2 fail, the Blacks I have had pretty rough luck with though, not failing but simply bad out of the bag, the ones that were good have all been great.

****
I try not to hold grudges against companies long term, things happen management changes, issues get solved, I just like to make sure everything is solid before I start dumping things into live servers that are critical to businesses.


----------



## REVHEAD (Oct 25, 2009)

Any seagate drive is a epic fail, stick with Western Digital.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 25, 2009)

REVHEAD said:


> Any seagate drive is a epic fail, stick with Western Digital.



That's a pretty hard vote of fanboyism and provides very little help in this decision.

Seagate makes very solid drives, they had a rough patch, so did everyone else.
Come to think of it, Seagate is the only company I will buy SCSI drives from and for very good reason, they are known and have been for a long time to be the fastest and one of the longest living.


----------



## REVHEAD (Oct 25, 2009)

I hae had 7200.10 drives fail x 2 and 1 7200.11 all within 12 months, as for WD drives I havnt had one fail yet, and the Segate drives I have owned were really really noisy, sounded like I had a Geiger counter was in my case.

 I am not a fanboy, this term seems to be thrown out at random way to often these days, just because a person reccomends a differant brand to there liking. I am just throwing out my experiance.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 25, 2009)

REVHEAD said:


> I hae had 7200.10 drives fail x 2 and 1 7200.11 all within 12 months, as for WD drives I havnt had one fail yet, and the Segate drives I have owned were really really noisy, sounded like I had a Geiger counter was in my case.
> 
> I am not a fanboy, this term seems to be thrown out at random way to often these days, just because a person reccomends a differant brand to there liking. I am just throwing out my experiance.



I see far more WD drives come in failed than Seagate.  In my personal experience, Western Digital has been the only drive that has completely failed suddenly without warning, in fact Western Digital has been the only drive I have ever had fail on me(but I've only ever had 2 drives fail on me personally).

I still buy WD drives though, shit happens, both companies make exceptional drives.


----------



## driver66 (Oct 25, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I see far more WD drives come in failed than Seagate.  In my personal experience, Western Digital has been the only drive that has completely failed suddenly without warning, in fact Western Digital has been the only drive I have ever had fail on me(but I've only ever had 2 drives fail on me personally).
> 
> I still buy WD drives though, shit happens, both companies make exceptional drives.



Same experience , same viewpoint ^^^^


----------



## niko084 (Oct 25, 2009)

REVHEAD said:


> I am not a fanboy, this term seems to be thrown out at random way to often these days, just because a person reccomends a differant brand to there liking. I am just throwing out my experiance.



It is not lightly thrown out.

You didn't state any reasoning at all for your opinion and all it said was "seagate = fail"
Which is utterly ridiculous and untrue.

If you want to be taken seriously and give some advice or opinion, give a little reason behind a barely better than spam post.


----------



## Geofrancis (Oct 25, 2009)

i have used drives from about every manufacturer the best have always been seagate and western digital i have never had problems from those companys. 

maxtor drives are not too bad but run slow and very hot!

i have had nothing but problems from hitachi drives from 500gb drives dieing on me to laptop drives corrupting. 

i now own a couple of samsungs no problems so far. 

back to the question you asked. 

i think the only difference between the surveillance drive and a standard desktop drive is that its rated for 24/7 use and the firmware will be tuned for saving multiple simultaneous data streams rather than random IO.


----------



## tostator (Oct 25, 2009)

Thanks everyone. Finally I bought the seagate surveillance sv35.5 and seems to work fine. Cold and silent enough (others Seagate I own are a little bit silent). As I mencioned, performance was not very important in that computer, just reability.

Please, do not make a discussing forum of what brand is better. I supose everyone has its own opinion based in their personal experience.

Thanks again, people of TPU!!! Always there!


----------



## thebeephaha (Oct 27, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> ...the number of faulty drives was actually pretty low.



My company put the .11s in all the systems we sold for a while there.

About 65% of a couple hundred of them came back in a few months with bricked drives. Our target consumers wouldn't know firmware from tupperware. I say it was a bigger issue than most think.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 27, 2009)

thebeephaha said:


> My company put the .11s in all the systems we sold for a while there.
> 
> About 65% of a couple hundred of them came back in a few months with bricked drives. Our target consumers wouldn't know firmware from tupperware. I say it was a bigger issue than most think.



It was a big issue if you limit it to just the .11 drives sold in a short time period.  However, in the relative scheme of things, it was a tiny issue that affected maybe 1% of Seagate drives sold in 2008.


----------



## Santanu Das (Dec 22, 2014)

how to use a surveillance hard disk as a desktop hard disk?


----------

