R
Ron Reaugh
No more, that's old think.
Nonsense.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
No more, that's old think.
Nonsense.
F
Folkert Rienstra
Ron Reaugh said:Try an SATA Raptor and you wont be able to sense any performance difference
between the two machines simply by using them.
Any such statement is meaningless without specifying drive model.
Nonsense.
It says that it's doing better than 15-17MB/s and less than
30-35MB/s sustained (against the better than ~30MB/s and
less than ~60MB/s sustained for the IDE).
C
calypso
No more, that's old think.
Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...
Nonsense.
Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape... Like I
said, tapes are for seriuos backups... Every big company uses tape backups,
and some of them would be really glad to have a nuclear-resistant
underground facility to put those tapes...
--
"Pijans li krekero bicuje ?" upita dostavljaca pipa Esmeraldau vjesu.
"Nisam ja nikog bombardiro !" rece banderao hoce "Ja samo cizmao jede slomljenm !" By runf
Damir Lukic, calypso@_MAKNIOVO_fly.srk.fer.hr
a member of hr.comp.hardver FAQ-team
J
J. Clarke
Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup... Hotswap drives
can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
tape)...
Of course they can. So they die. So do tapes. So what? When one dies you
toss it and get a new one just like you do with tapes. Until you reach a
certain amount of required storage, using disks as disposable media is more
cost-effective than a tape drive and tapes.
J
J. Clarke
Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
solution... For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...
Define "serious".
Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape...
Since you bring that up, care to provide some numbers? No? I didn't think
so. Personally I've experienced more failures of tapes and drives than I
have of hard disks, and trust them less.
Regardless, if the "time of life" exceeds 30 days by a reasonable margin
then the medium is adequate for _backup_. 30 days is a very, very old
backup--beyond that for most purposes for which _backup_ is required there
is no point in bothering. Any disk that routinely failed in less than a
couple of years would end up getting the manufacturer sued, so they pass
the 30-day test.
Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different from
backup. Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.
Like I
said, tapes are for seriuos backups... Every big company uses tape
backups, and some of them would be really glad to have a nuclear-resistant
underground facility to put those tapes...
Every big company has a large amount of data to back up. In their situation
tape is clearly cost-effective.
E
Eric Gisin
Folkert Rienstra said:Nonsense.
It says that it's doing better than 15-17MB/s and less than
30-35MB/s sustained (against the better than ~30MB/s and
less than ~60MB/s sustained for the IDE).
He said Fuji MAM. That's a U160 drive that does over 50MB/s.
I would never downgrade mine to a Raptor.
J
Jeremy Boden
J. Clarke said:Define "serious".
Since you bring that up, care to provide some numbers? No? I didn't think
so. Personally I've experienced more failures of tapes and drives than I
have of hard disks, and trust them less.
Regardless, if the "time of life" exceeds 30 days by a reasonable margin
then the medium is adequate for _backup_. 30 days is a very, very old
backup--beyond that for most purposes for which _backup_ is required there
is no point in bothering. Any disk that routinely failed in less than a
couple of years would end up getting the manufacturer sued, so they pass
the 30-day test.
Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different from
backup. Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.
Every big company has a large amount of data to back up. In their situation
tape is clearly cost-effective.
If you can't achieve a reliable 6+ years then you could find that your
companies tax situation is in very deep shit.
J
J. Clarke
Learn to reply instead of starting a new thread.
Which has what relevance?
Jeremy said:If you can't achieve a reliable 6+ years then you could find that your
companies tax situation is in very deep shit.
Which has what relevance?
R
Rod Speed
Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they
could simply die much easier than any tape)...
Pig ignorant drivel.
R
Ron Reaugh
Folkert Rienstra said:Nonsense.
It says that it's doing better than 15-17MB/s and less than
30-35MB/s sustained (against the better than ~30MB/s and
less than ~60MB/s sustained for the IDE).
HUH!
R
Ron Reaugh
Don't be so sure... Tape backup is a must for every serious backup
solution...
Not any more.
For home use it might be not be a good solution (price!), but
for anything serious, tapes are unreplacable...
Guess again.
Oh yeah? Check the avg. time of life for a HDD and for a tape... Like I
said, tapes are for seriuos backups...
Now you expose your deficiencies. Archive storage and backup are two
different things.
R
Ron Reaugh
J. Clarke said:Of course they can. So they die. So do tapes. So what? When one dies you
toss it and get a new one just like you do with tapes. Until you reach a
certain amount of required storage, using disks as disposable media
Although your heart is in the right place the phrase "disks as disposable
media" is off/misleading and ruins the point.
F
Folkert Rienstra
Eric Gisin said:He said Fuji MAM.
Yes, later on.
That's a U160 drive that does over 50MB/s.
Right.
That drive came out late 2001, before SPI-4 rev1 -the one that covers U320-
came into being (May, 2002). Later models probably have U320 interfaces.
C
calypso
Define "serious".
Banks, government, big companies (like multinational ones - Mobil,
Coca-Cola, GMC, Pliva, T-Com, etc)...
Beyond 30 days or so you're talking about archiving, which is different from
backup. Neither tape nor magnetic disk is particularly well suited for
archiving, although DLT has been used and is developing a track record.
OK, what's the difference between archiving and backup? Backup is temporary
or?
Every big company has a large amount of data to back up. In their situation
tape is clearly cost-effective.
How so? Look at the capacity of drives, and compare to tapes... One LTO tape
drive (200/400GB) costs around 3000EUR, one LTO 200/400GB tape costs
120EUR... One 200GB drive costs under 100EUR... Other tape drives (like SONY
AIT, Tandberg DLT) with such capacities (300/600 and 500/1000GB) cost even
more, and tapes are much more expensive... So, how so that those are used
instead of 'cheaper' drives? Why produce something so expensive when you
have much cheaper solution... Answer that, please... For low-capacity tapes,
it's OK, they're a cheaper solution for lower capacity backups, but
enterprise solutions are enterprise solutions, and there is no room for
games here...
--
"Pedofilans li drugaru nabiju ?" upita studento kolje Zidovu pozdravlju.
"Ne znam ja nista !" rece Bosanaca kopa "Ja samo blatoog pusija bodljikavm !" By runf
Damir Lukic, calypso@_MAKNIOVO_fly.srk.fer.hr
a member of hr.comp.hardver FAQ-team
J
J. Clarke
Banks, government, big companies (like multinational ones - Mobil,
Coca-Cola, GMC, Pliva, T-Com, etc)...
And for their volume tape is cost effective. But the person responsible for
backup in a company that size would not be asking questions here.
OK, what's the difference between archiving and backup? Backup is
temporary or?
Backup is short term--its purpose is to get your data back online after a
system failure or loss. In an ideal world it has data up to the minute.
In the real world close of business yesterday is that best that can be done
without a large budget. The only time one would want to restore a backup
older than that would be if the latest backup was corrupted somehow or the
media wad dead.
How so? Look at the capacity of drives, and compare to tapes... One LTO
tape drive (200/400GB) costs around 3000EUR, one LTO 200/400GB tape costs
120EUR... One 200GB drive costs under 100EUR...
Someone is ripping you off, dude. Or else the taxes are structured to favor
disk for some reason. The going price for an LTO 200/400 drive in the US
is $2K, and the tapes are $45 a piece, which means that they cost the same
as 40 gig disks. For small backups the LTO is not cost effective, but a
point is reached where the lower cost of the tapes and the amortized cost
of the drive work out to less than the cost of disks.
Other tape drives (like
SONY AIT,
Tandberg DLT
Is Tandberg finally making DLT? Try Quantum.
) with such capacities (300/600 and 500/1000GB) cost
even more,
SDLT 600 drives go for 50% more than LTO, which is reasonable considering
that they have 50% more capacity. The tapes seem to be going for about
$100US, which is considerably cheaper than 300 gig of disk. So again if
the volume is large enough to allow the cost of the drive to be amortized
then the tape becomes less costly to run.
and tapes are much more expensive... So, how so that those are
used instead of 'cheaper' drives?
Because the drives are not cheaper when the storage volume is above a
certain level. At least not in a free market.
Why produce something so expensive when
you have much cheaper solution... Answer that, please...
Already did.
For low-capacity
tapes, it's OK, they're a cheaper solution for lower capacity backups,
What "lower capacity tapes"?
but
enterprise solutions are enterprise solutions, and there is no room for
games here...
So who was asking for an "enterprise solution"?
R
Ron Reaugh
You analyze HD vs tape backup on the basis of pure cost. The best analysis
is on the basis of price-performance. Performance also includes convenience
as well as speed. Those performance factors raise the HD solution well in
front of tape even at equal dollars for modest configurations.
is on the basis of price-performance. Performance also includes convenience
as well as speed. Those performance factors raise the HD solution well in
front of tape even at equal dollars for modest configurations.
F
Fishhead
I also have a Quantum brand 10k SCSI 160 drive.
I downloaded and ran HD tach.
The quantum was faster then the Fujitsu which were both faster then the
data given for the raptor.
I downloaded and ran HD tach.
The quantum was faster then the Fujitsu which were both faster then the
data given for the raptor.
F
Fishhead
Do you have any idea of a decent price for the Raptor?
I see there are 2 different sizes, is there a speed difference in the
size?
I will buy a raptor, and another decent 160 drive.... this will end the
debate.
I see there are 2 different sizes, is there a speed difference in the
size?
I will buy a raptor, and another decent 160 drive.... this will end the
debate.
R
Ron Reaugh
Fishhead said:I also have a Quantum brand 10k SCSI 160 drive.
Repeated claims not showing model number are to be ignored. You are
sounding more like a SCSI marketing droid on each post.
I downloaded and ran HD tach.
The quantum was faster then the Fujitsu which were both faster then the
data given for the raptor.
HDTach doesn't show actual app/OS performance. Triple cost SCSI HDs don't
compete price-performance wise with
usage.
R
Ron Reaugh
Fishhead said:Do you have any idea of a decent price for the Raptor?
$182 www.mwave.com
I see there are 2 different sizes, is there a speed difference in the
size?
Yes, the 74GB is the one to get and is faster.
I will buy a raptor, and another decent 160 drive.... this will end the
debate.
Not with you as the reporter. All this has altready been done. There are a
number of sites on the web who have run all the benchmarks on these issues
and most all