Re: tapes best for backup?
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 12:04:05PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/04/08 10:23, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:56:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 01/03/08 20:30, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > Right. What about things of great sentimental value? E.g. family
> > photos? What about financial records? Sure 7 GB is chickenfeed. It
> > fits on one DVD. However, to put that on the shelf, what to use to make
> > it last?
> Chickenfeed is still important... to chickens.
> So I wasn't trying to denigrate your 7GB of important data, but to
> express that, in today's world, tape would be a radically cost-
> inefficient means of storing only 7GB.
> >> If a reputable archival company like Iron Mountain offers on-line
> >> storage, then I'd encrypt it and drop it on their servers.
> > So how do they store it? If they're just going to drop it onto a hard
> > drive and forget about it, how is that different than me putting it on 2
> > hard drives: one on a backup server that runs so that hard drive errors
> > show up; one in an external case that gets a fresh backup put on it
> > every month or so and goes to the bank's safety deposit box? Or, if
> > they're just going to archive it in a tape library, how is that
> > different than me putting it on a tape and putting that in the bank?
> Nothing... except expertise. It's their *job* to monitor the SAN,
> replacing failed disks, taking backups, etc.
So, ultimatly, for reliability, it ends up on tape. On-line storage
places amortize the cost of a tape drive over the number of people's
data it takes to fill a tape(s) (well, you get what I mean I hope).
So if one could get an older-model tape drive (say, some version of DLT),
tape remains the best for on-the-shelf off-line archival purposes?