[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Recommended tape backup software - tape vs disk

hi ya peter

> > - a tape is 40 - 80GB.... same as disks ... nowdays disks is
> >   always slightly higher capacity....
> You're behind the curve. AIT3 and SDLT offer capacities of ~200GB per
> tape.

yuppers....  gave up when tapes was 80GB.... and the mammoth tape drives
was $7K each... and each tape was $80 - $100 range...
	- got years of that stuff... at the old place...
> Tape is still cheaper per gigabyte. Can you get a 220GB disk for ~90
> quid? 

cost of media is one thing...

add in the additional costs for:
	- tape drive
	- time spent to read the tape
	- time spent to find a particular file the user lost
	- time spent to simulate a crashed disk and replace with a new one
	and restore
	- i still put my bet on disks....
> You'll look back with regret when your disk-based backup system eats
> itself alive. Hard disks fail. Tapes might fail too, but they fail less
> often, and have less impact on the overall system when they do. Easier
> to replace, easier to obtain. If push comes to shove, I can get tapes
> from the local Staples.

had more tape failures than disks...
	- usually because they lost the disk.. and expect me to
	restore from their tapes which was usually also bad...

	- at tht point its a real easy sale to convert from
	high maintenance/daily tapes... to automated disk backups

	- pull any drive out at anyime to simulate a disk crash
	and try to restore from tape.... and also from disk...
> > 	
> > 		--- if the disks is raid5'd ... give one disk
> > 		--- to each of the CEO/CFO/CTO/foo/bar and no one user
> > 		--- has all the data... no way for stealing corp secrets
> That's innovative, but impractical.

mkes fure a good research project....

> > - majority of stufff i do is across the ocean ...
> > 	-
> > 	- can't go around changing tapes... :-)
> > 	- and even if the tapes was in my office... i still wont use it
> > 	- as we all step away on weeekends and holidays and sick etc...
> > 	-
> > 	- i say a tape based backup fails the day somebody forgot 
> > 	- to change the tape...  you lost yesterdays data
> > 	-
> Depends. If you run two tape drives and have a tape jockey onsite to
> swap the tapes, you're OK.

had 3 tape drives running.... tyoo much headaches...

i would never ever bet  "my backups is working properly" on a "tape
jockey" at a colo or other facilities ... too paranoid to take
the heat for why backups is not working ... when their disk crashes..
	- never had a disk-based backup fail...
		- so far been lucky ??

	- lots of tape-based backups fail for various reason...
		- usually cause somebody ( not me ) didnt calen the tape
		or rotate the tapes

	- i cant use tapes... i am NOT onsite.... and will NOT gamble
	that somebody else did their tape rotation job

> > - out here... 50-100GB of data to play with per day per user ...
> > 	- most of the generated outputs is not backed up
> > 	since its easily regenerated by the spice programs...
> > 
> > - when doing full chip layouts... we can get into 10's Terabytes
> >   of data... most of which i claim is worthless....
> >   and constantly changing .. no pointto backup other than for "archive"
> >   and the lawyers to have a running history...
> A terabyte is 10 AIT-3 tapes. How many disks is it?

same number of tapes or disks....
> Believe me when I say that you're in a minority amongst sysadmins on
> this topic.

no problem.....  like being different.... 

	- better in some things... worst in others...

	- i like being able to sleep all day too while they are working
	( machines should just run .... flawlessly...

-- best to reularly test the backup system... wether tape or disks...
   and pretend tha the disk really did crash and spend the time/effort
   and phone/calls ...mad people... to recover from the backups...
	-- in prodcution environment... where it counts...

c ya

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: