It works, and it is usually the wrong purchase. SkyHawk is tuned for continuous multi-stream video writing, which a desktop does not do, so you pay for a specialisation you will not use. Check the part number too: two SkyHawk models are shingled per Seagate's own datasheet.
SkyHawk is a surveillance line. It is specified against a duty cycle where the drive writes continuously from many video streams, and once the disk fills it overwrites the oldest footage in a permanent loop. Seagate rates the standard line at 180TB per year and states support for up to 64 cameras.
A desktop does almost none of that. It is idle most of the time, its writes are bursty rather than continuous, and it reads far more than it writes. The firmware behaviours SkyHawk advertises for video are not exercised.
That does not make it a bad drive in a desktop. It makes it a drive whose distinguishing features you are paying for and not using, which is a different criticism and a fairer one.
SkyHawk is one of the lines where Seagate's own documents disagree, and it is worth knowing before buying.
Seagate's SkyHawk datasheet states shingled recording for the ST4000VX013 while stating conventional for the other 4TB part, the ST4000VX007. The SkyHawk SATA product manual repeats shingled for that generation including the ST2000VX015. Seagate's separate summary CMR/SMR list shows no shingled drives anywhere in the SkyHawk line, contradicting both.
We badge what the part-number-level documents say and publish the disagreement rather than picking the convenient answer. For a desktop the distinction rarely matters; for a drive you might later repurpose into an array it matters a great deal.
If the drive is bulk storage in a desktop, a desktop line is cheaper and equally suitable. BarraCuda, WD Blue and Toshiba P300 all occupy that position, with the same part-number caveat about recording technology.
If the drive is going into a NAS, buy a NAS line rather than a surveillance one. They are both continuous-duty lines but tuned for different access patterns, and the NAS lines are conventionally recorded across their ranges.
If you are actually running cameras, SkyHawk is the right line and the question answers itself. Our surveillance coverage prices both SkyHawk tiers live with the workload rating printed against each part number.
One case where a SkyHawk in a desktop is genuinely sensible: you found one cheap. A continuous-duty drive at a desktop-drive price is a fine outcome, and there is nothing wrong with the hardware for this use.
Yes. It is a standard SATA drive and the operating system will not know or care what it was designed for. The criticism is economic rather than technical: you are paying for continuous-write surveillance tuning that a desktop workload does not exercise.
It depends on the part number, and Seagate's own documents disagree about part of the line. The SkyHawk datasheet and product manual both state shingled for the ST4000VX013 and ST2000VX015 family, while Seagate's summary list shows no shingled drives in the line. We badge what the per-model documents say.
It is rated for a heavier duty cycle, which is a specification rather than a reliability promise. SkyHawk is rated 180TB per year against BarraCuda's roughly 55, and for continuous operation rather than a working day. Whether that translates into a longer life in a desktop is not something we would claim.
It will work, and a NAS line is the better match. Both are continuous-duty lines, but they are tuned for different access patterns, surveillance is many sequential write streams, a NAS mixes random reads and writes with parity traffic. The NAS lines are also conventionally recorded throughout.