R
Ron Reaugh
configurations.
Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
No more, that's old think.
Hotswap drives
can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
tape)...
Nonsense.
configurations.
Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
Hotswap drives
can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
tape)...
Ron Reaugh said:Try an SATA Raptor and you wont be able to sense any performance difference
between the two machines simply by using them.
Any such statement is meaningless without specifying drive model.
No more, that's old think.
Nonsense.
Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup... Hotswap drives
can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
tape)...
Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...
Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape...
Like I
said, tapes are for seriuos backups... Every big company uses tape
backups, and some of them would be really glad to have a nuclear-resistant
underground facility to put those tapes...
Folkert Rienstra said:Nonsense.
It says that it's doing better than 15-17MB/s and less than
30-35MB/s sustained (against the better than ~30MB/s and
less than ~60MB/s sustained for the IDE).
J. Clarke said:Define "serious".
Since you bring that up, care to provide some numbers? No? I didn't think
so. Personally I've experienced more failures of tapes and drives than I
have of hard disks, and trust them less.
Regardless, if the "time of life" exceeds 30 days by a reasonable margin
then the medium is adequate for _backup_. 30 days is a very, very old
backup--beyond that for most purposes for which _backup_ is required there
is no point in bothering. Any disk that routinely failed in less than a
couple of years would end up getting the manufacturer sued, so they pass
the 30-day test.
Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different from
backup. Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.
Every big company has a large amount of data to back up. In their situation
tape is clearly cost-effective.
Jeremy said:If you can't achieve a reliable 6+ years then you could find that your
companies tax situation is in very deep shit.
Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they
could simply die much easier than any tape)...
Folkert Rienstra said:Nonsense.
It says that it's doing better than 15-17MB/s and less than
30-35MB/s sustained (against the better than ~30MB/s and
less than ~60MB/s sustained for the IDE).
Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
solution...
For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...
Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape... Like I
said, tapes are for seriuos backups...
J. Clarke said:Of course they can. So they die. So do tapes. So what? When one dies you
toss it and get a new one just like you do with tapes. Until you reach a
certain amount of required storage, using disks as disposable media
Eric Gisin said:He said Fuji MAM.
That's a U160 drive that does over 50MB/s.
Define "serious".
Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different from
backup. Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.
Every big company has a large amount of data to back up. In their situation
tape is clearly cost-effective.
Banks, government, big companies (like multinational ones - Mobil,
Coca-Cola, GMC, Pliva, T-Com, etc)...
OK, what's the difference between archiving and backup? Backup is
temporary or?
How so? Look at the capacity of drives, and compare to tapes... One LTO
tape drive (200/400GB) costs around 3000EUR, one LTO 200/400GB tape costs
120EUR... One 200GB drive costs under 100EUR...
Other tape drives (like
SONY AIT,
Tandberg DLT
) with such capacities (300/600 and 500/1000GB) cost
even more,
and tapes are much more expensive... So, how so that those are
used instead of 'cheaper' drives?
Why produce something so expensive when
you have much cheaper solution... Answer that, please...
For low-capacity
tapes, it's OK, they're a cheaper solution for lower capacity backups,
but
enterprise solutions are enterprise solutions, and there is no room for
games here...
Fishhead said:I also have a Quantum brand 10k SCSI 160 drive.
I downloaded and ran HD tach.
The quantum was faster then the Fujitsu which were both faster then the
data given for the raptor.
Fishhead said:Do you have any idea of a decent price for the Raptor?
I see there are 2 different sizes, is there a speed difference in the
size?
I will buy a raptor, and another decent 160 drive.... this will end the
debate.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.