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
alvin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
