the drive lives in a desktop and is idle most of the time, where the surveillance tuning is a specialisation you pay for and never use.
the drive is recording from cameras continuously, which is the duty cycle it is specified against and the one BarraCuda is not.
BarraCuda is a desktop line. Seagate specifies it around 55TB per year at roughly 2400 powered hours annually, which describes a machine used during a working day and switched off or idle otherwise.
SkyHawk is a surveillance line rated at 180TB per year for continuous operation, with Seagate stating support for up to 64 cameras. A recorder writes every second it is powered, and once the disk fills it overwrites the oldest footage in a permanent loop.
Those are genuinely different jobs, and the drives are specified accordingly. Using either in the other's role is not a disaster, but it is either paying for capability you will not use or running outside the envelope you bought.
Neither line is uniformly conventional, and both cases are recorded in Seagate's own documents.
In BarraCuda, the current 1TB through 8TB 3.5-inch models are shingled per Seagate's datasheet, and the 12TB and larger are conventional.
In SkyHawk the picture is stranger. Seagate's SkyHawk datasheet states shingled for the ST4000VX013 while stating conventional for the other 4TB part, and the SkyHawk 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 publish the disagreement and badge what the per-model documents say.
The practical instruction for either line is the same: read the part number, not the family name.
For a desktop, buy the desktop line. SkyHawk in a desktop works fine and you are paying for continuous-write tuning that a desktop workload does not exercise. The exception is finding one cheap, in which case a continuous-duty drive at a desktop price is a good outcome.
For cameras, buy the surveillance line, and not because a BarraCuda would fail immediately. It would be running at several times its rated annual workload in a role where nobody looks at the machine for months, which is the situation where a rated envelope earns its keep.
For a NAS, buy neither. Both are specialised in directions that do not match a NAS's mixed random access with parity traffic, and Seagate's IronWolf line is the answer for that role with conventional recording guaranteed throughout.
The case against SkyHawk in a desktop is that you paid for something you are not using, and the case against BarraCuda in a recorder is that you are running a drive at several times its rated annual workload in a machine nobody checks. The less obvious loser case applies to both: in a parity array, either line can be the shingled model, and the recording technology has to be checked per part number rather than assumed from the family. Neither line is a NAS line whatever its recording technology turns out to be.
Yes, and it is usually the wrong purchase economically rather than technically. SkyHawk is tuned and rated for continuous multi-stream video writing, which a desktop does not do, so you are paying for a specialisation that goes unused. If you found one cheap, it is a fine drive.
It will record, and it will be running at several times its rated annual workload in a machine nobody looks at for months. SkyHawk is rated at 180TB per year against BarraCuda's roughly 55, and for continuous operation rather than a working day.
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 SkyHawk at all. We badge what the per-model documents say.
Neither. Both are specialised away from what a NAS does, which is mixed random access with parity traffic. Seagate's IronWolf is the line for that role, conventionally recorded across the range and rated at 180TB per year for continuous multi-bay operation.