> Not sure if it is important to many people, but tapes take a lot less > electricity than online disks. do you really care? an active disk is about 15W, inactive 5W and asleep nearly zero. even assuming idle-but-spinning, I make that as about $2/year. tapes are wonderful in every way except one: they're finicky and difficult to care for properly. for instance, do you have a humidity and temperature-controlled place to store them? and have you actually logged the temp/hum for that to see whether, for instance, it gets warm on weekends? if I were forced to use tapes, I would insist on making 2+ copies of everything. note that this clearly hurt's tape's competitiveness WRT price, size, bandwidth, etc. I don't see any new tape installations that are not driven by secondary factors such as big piles of old data already on tape, or someone wanting to physically move the media into a vault. (on that topic, I don't buy the idea that tape's less vulnerable to hacking, either. just because your backup is on disk doesn't mean that it's online or accessible. similarly, just because your tape is in a separate cabinet doesn't mean that a sufficiently motivated badguy could not get the tape put into some drive...) regards, mark hahn. (buying many TB of disk this year and no tape) - 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
