OT: SLR 5 Tape drive vs DAT

[Transpower]

Bill Vermillion wrote on 2/9/2005, 2:42 PM:

 > On Wed, Feb 09 14:22  Jay R. Ashworth said 'Who you talkin' to? You
 > talkin'
 > to Jay R. Ashworth?  I didn't do nuttin'.  I said:
 >
 > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:59:39AM -0500, Fairlight wrote:
 > >
 > > > Simon--er, no...it was J. Ryan Kelley--said:
 > > >
 > > > > The Main advantage i can think of is that tape drives are
 > > > > reuseable, so if you need to backup your data on the same
 > > > > medium several times, Tape is still the better option.
 > > > > I would agree that DVD is a better option for long term
 > > > > permanent storage though
 >
 > > > DVD-RW/+RW anyone?
 >
 > > Actually, there *are* some good reasons.
 >
 > > Tapes are much more rugged, from a handling standpoint, and the moreso
 > > the larger the tapewidth.
 >
 > > I have a client who is having the annual TR-4 failure. We
 > > contemplated switching them to DVD-RW, but the box in question
 > > is one door away from a machine shop, and handwashing isn't
 > > their strong suit. The tapes have a much higher likelihood of
 > > not getting trashed.
 >
 > Before I took over the *n*x side for a site they had been going
 > through the Travan routine.
 >
 > I put in a VXA-1 by Ecrix [now part of Quantum] and it just runs
 > and runs and runs.  It's running on an IDE interface in Linux with
 > scsi-emulation.  The VXA-1 is actaully a SCSI device with an IDE
 > interface.  SCSI price is the same.  List price is $699.  So far
 > they are ahead of the game considering how often the TR-4 devices
 > were being replaced.
 >
 > 8mm tape form factor.  33GB native - and 66GB with hardware
 > compression [ not the inflated compression specs you see
 > in systems that use SW compression ]
 >
 > It averages about 100MB/min backup.  And that's the cheapest and
 > slowest of their line.   It gave Quantum a lower priced entry
 > point.
 >
 > > Secondly, LTO is up to 500GB in a DLT shell.  How many DVDs is that?
 >
 > I'd guess about 125 :-)
 >
 > And to one of the other posters who guessed that DVD is better
 > for long term storage - since we've only had DVD writeables for
 > about 5 years and I've pulled data off of 15 year old tapes all
 > guesses on DVD longevity are just that - guesses.
 >
 > And one drop of a DVD can put a minisucle dent in the surface from
 > which you can not recover the data.
 >
 > TDK is comeing out with their new scratch-proof coating for DVDs -
 > but I haven't seen that on the market.
 >
 > The data storage surface is too exposed to damage.   That's  one
 > reason the DVD-RAM disks originally came in cartridgges just like
 > the original CD players from people like NEC.
 >
 > Data storage requires more thoughtful storage consideration than
 > the movies you buy or rent.
 >
 > And some DVDs are barely worth watching the first time let alone
 > 15 years from now.
 >
 > DVD's are entertainment technology adapted to data storage - the
 > same way DAT started - but DAT disappeared and for data the DDS
 > came into play - and while they look similar they aren't.
 >
 > DAT devices were designed to be played from end to end - just like
 > an LP or CD.  DDS were designed for the stop/rewind/start mode
 > in data environments so the cartridges have a much better design
 > even though they look the same to the naked eye. [Can I say naked
 > here or will the FCC come after me?]
 >
 > Bill
 >
 > --
 > Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

I just purchased the new UltraBac 8 Image Backup software and will 
shortly be testing it with my LTO tape drive.  It comes with a Disaster 
Recover CD and promises to be essentially a one-step restore of, say, 
the C-partition.  This will get around having to retrieve the Microsoft 
CD, enter the key, load files from the CD, etc., before doing the restore.

RWS
Transpower Corporation, www.transpowercorp.com, transpower at aol.com