Tape drives

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Another newbie question I'm afraid. We need to back up our main
fileserver drive on a weekly basis, and so, my thoughts turned to tape
drives - the idea being that it would be easy to transport something
(i.e. the tape) off-site. My thought to go with a tape drive (rather
than, say a DVD-burner) is that I presume the former would be easier to
use and also that each tape could take more volume. Is this right ?
We're looking to back up, maybe 30-40 Gb per week (NB: I know we should
be doing differential back-ups, but we just don't have the time for
such things, nor for cleaning up the drive all the time).

I've read things about how tape drives are v. expensive and now no
longer the best solution, but it seems the safest way of taking a large
volume of data off-site. Does that make sense ?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <1116860456.157415.182070@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
benjrees <benjrees@gmail.com> wrote:
>Another newbie question I'm afraid. We need to back up our main
>fileserver drive on a weekly basis, and so, my thoughts turned to tape
>drives - the idea being that it would be easy to transport something
>(i.e. the tape) off-site. My thought to go with a tape drive (rather
>than, say a DVD-burner) is that I presume the former would be easier to
>use and also that each tape could take more volume. Is this right ?
>We're looking to back up, maybe 30-40 Gb per week (NB: I know we should
>be doing differential back-ups, but we just don't have the time for
>such things, nor for cleaning up the drive all the time).
>
>I've read things about how tape drives are v. expensive and now no
>longer the best solution, but it seems the safest way of taking a large
>volume of data off-site. Does that make sense ?
>


IMO do disk-disk backup daily to big cheap IDE disks on your network
and then move some of savesets on the IDE disk to tape and carried
offsite.

You need to do a risk assesment to see what data needs to be removed
from the building daily, weekly, etc. WIth luck the daily data can be
burned into a CD and tucked into your jacket pocket and go home with
you.

I like DLT4 tape drives 35-70GB/tape and fairly fast. DAT has always
given me grief.







--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> Another newbie question I'm afraid. We need to back up our main
> fileserver drive on a weekly basis, and so, my thoughts turned to tape
> drives - the idea being that it would be easy to transport something
> (i.e. the tape) off-site. My thought to go with a tape drive (rather
> than, say a DVD-burner) is that I presume the former would be easier to
> use and also that each tape could take more volume. Is this right ?
> We're looking to back up, maybe 30-40 Gb per week (NB: I know we should
> be doing differential back-ups, but we just don't have the time for
> such things, nor for cleaning up the drive all the time).
>
> I've read things about how tape drives are v. expensive and now no
> longer the best solution, but it seems the safest way of taking a large
> volume of data off-site. Does that make sense ?

If off-line storage and simplicity of use come first, tape indeed
seems to be the best solution.
DLT 8000 gives 40GB native which would be too little soon.
DLT VS160 gives 80GB native and that would be my choice.

Disk based solutions usually require a bit more attention than
just pressing one button (eject) and replacing media.
Cost per media is also a bit higher.

Somewhere in the future we might have removable SATA
drives, sturdy enough to work in a hot swappable RAID1
configurations; with a quick mirror rebuild feature.
Then you would just remove one drive and replace it with
a blank or old one.

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > Another newbie question I'm afraid. We need to back up our main
> > fileserver drive on a weekly basis, and so, my thoughts turned to tape
> > drives - the idea being that it would be easy to transport something
> > (i.e. the tape) off-site. My thought to go with a tape drive (rather
> > than, say a DVD-burner) is that I presume the former would be easier to
> > use and also that each tape could take more volume. Is this right ?
> > We're looking to back up, maybe 30-40 Gb per week (NB: I know we should
> > be doing differential back-ups, but we just don't have the time for
> > such things, nor for cleaning up the drive all the time).
> >
> > I've read things about how tape drives are v. expensive and now no
> > longer the best solution, but it seems the safest way of taking a large
> > volume of data off-site. Does that make sense ?
>
> If off-line storage and simplicity of use come first, tape indeed
> seems to be the best solution.
> DLT 8000 gives 40GB native which would be too little soon.
> DLT VS160 gives 80GB native and that would be my choice.
>
> Disk based solutions usually require a bit more attention than
> just pressing one button (eject) and replacing media.
> Cost per media is also a bit higher.
>
> Somewhere in the future we might have removable SATA
> drives, sturdy enough to work in a hot swappable RAID1
> configurations; with a quick mirror rebuild feature.
> Then you would just remove one drive and replace it with
> a blank or old one.

Currently DLT VS160 drives sell for 880-900$, tapes 40-42$.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi,

From my experience, DLT or DDS kind of tape drive have more failure than
AIT.

If you compress your data, AIT1 would do, otherwise go for AIT2 or 3.

They do exist in SCSI or IDE version for AIT1 and AIT2. only scsi for AIT3.

Let me know if u need futher details.

Sam
"benjrees" <benjrees@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1116860456.157415.182070@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Another newbie question I'm afraid. We need to back up our main
> fileserver drive on a weekly basis, and so, my thoughts turned to tape
> drives - the idea being that it would be easy to transport something
> (i.e. the tape) off-site. My thought to go with a tape drive (rather
> than, say a DVD-burner) is that I presume the former would be easier to
> use and also that each tape could take more volume. Is this right ?
> We're looking to back up, maybe 30-40 Gb per week (NB: I know we should
> be doing differential back-ups, but we just don't have the time for
> such things, nor for cleaning up the drive all the time).
>
> I've read things about how tape drives are v. expensive and now no
> longer the best solution, but it seems the safest way of taking a large
> volume of data off-site. Does that make sense ?
>

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> From my experience, DLT or DDS kind of tape drive have more failure than
> AIT.
> If you compress your data, AIT1 would do, otherwise go for AIT2 or 3.
> They do exist in SCSI or IDE version for AIT1 and AIT2. only scsi for
AIT3.

Helical scan tape systems (DDS, AIT) tend to be less reliable than linear
serpentine systems (DLT, SDLT, LTO).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

benjrees wrote:
>
> (NB: I know we should
> be doing differential back-ups, but we just don't have the time for
> such things, nor for cleaning up the drive all the time).

You need to find / make the time.

How much time would you lose if your data went west?


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts