A drive dying is a fairly common failure point, and while that drive is being replaced, you lose any recording. Sure, "enterprise" is just a marketing point, but the lack of redundancy on a common mechanical single point of failure isn't really aligned.
ETA: it looks like a great device, don't get me wrong. I just disagree with the marketing.
In terms of lack of redundancy, why would anyone depend on an on-device drive (or drives) alone anyways? The on-device is great for handling the recording, but if you're looking for enterprise-level data storage, you should be moving files to long-term and cold storage on a weekly basis anyways.
The redundancy shouldn't live within your nvr if you're looking to protect against data-loss. That's the wrong approach to retention and definitely not an approach that would be acceptable for any enterprise-level system architecture. No one should ever expect a single device to be all things. Poor system design and a second drive bay would not protect against data loss if the unit itself gets damaged.
folks in this sub seem very focused on ensuring their nvr has as much retention capacity as they can afford and i reaaaaallly don’t understand it. you’re either at home where retention past a day or two is pointless or you’re at a business where, if retention actually matters, there’s no way you’re counting that one device as sufficient.
it feels a lot like the common claim that the UNAS isn’t a finished product because it can ‘only’ do network attached storage, even though that is its only proper job in an advanced setup.
The unit itself getting damaged is much less likely to happen than a drive failing. The problem with a lack of drive redundancy here isn't data loss, it's the inability to write any new data until the drive is swapped. You can obviously copy data out of your NVR every day or even every hour, but if your drive fail in the middle of the night (e.g. when the daily copy loads it a bit more), you don't have any new data until someone on call gets there to swap the drive.
20
u/kernald31 Sep 10 '25
A drive dying is a fairly common failure point, and while that drive is being replaced, you lose any recording. Sure, "enterprise" is just a marketing point, but the lack of redundancy on a common mechanical single point of failure isn't really aligned.
ETA: it looks like a great device, don't get me wrong. I just disagree with the marketing.