hi ya On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Jon Lewis wrote: > I should clarify, that's 80GB per tape...so 800GB native assumes you have > 10 tapes in the unit. yup...seen those puppies too ... too much headache for me > > i keep wondering why people pay $150K for 1TB brandname tape subsystems .. > > I wouldn't pay that much... the odd part is people do :-) just because its "name branded enterprise blah blah" > but I think the "common wisdom" is that tape is > more durable/portable than disks. Once upon a time, it was cheaper than > disks too...but that's no longer the case. yup ... and disks have become more reliable tapes still ahve the same problem they always had ... the heads need to be cleaned, and if the drive unit goes in for repair, you have no alternative options - i usually get those calls, from panicky folks, which there is no solution other than buy 2 tape drives or buy disk-based backups in addition to tapes if they like tapes both tape and disk backups have its purposes and reasons > It's part of why my plan to > buy a bunch of Exabyte stuff got shot down and instead we bought P4's with > 1TB SATA-RAID5 arrays to use as "backup servers". i'd buy 2 disk based backups, because one has to backup the backup server :-) - disks is cheap, compared to loss of 1TB of corp data or 10TB of corp data is more along the lines of fun when things become interesting :-) ------ david> Not sure if it is important to many people, but tapes take a lot david> less electricity than online disks. i doubt that it'd be a factor in buying tapes vs disks, but one never knows :-0 they should be more worried about magnets and phones next to the tape or tapes under the old fashion crt's - you'd be surprise what one finds, when one goes into "server rooms" which i guess is the fun part, fixing their problems c ya alvin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
