Help with options for data back-up Raid SCSI?? Just some i..

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d269d853678cbd1989766@localhost...
> In article <1119645419.150386.80770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> gregarpp@yahoo.com says...
>
> > In my home network.
> > 2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
> > All ran through router (wired and wireless)
> > Tablet does not need a redundant back-up
> >
> > Main PC stores video and images
> > other PC stores images.
> >
> > I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!
> >
> > Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE for backup
> > Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.
>
> Not good.
>
> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

Forget tape. Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest configurations.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119652655.822081.197370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> My primary concern for backup (redundancy) is harddrive failure.

It does however make sense to have a solution
that handles the other problems as well.

> I keep my OS (winXP) and progam files and data on 3 separate drives.
> I need a redundant real time back-up for my data drives

Completely routine to automate backup to an extra drive.

The only real advantage of RAID1 is that in theory you can
come up faster after a drive failure. In practice its got its
own downsides, so theory and practice can have quite
a chasm between them and you are very vulnerable to
failure of whatever you use to do hardware RAID too.

Software RAID is better there, but standard XP doesnt do that.

On the other hand, automated backup isnt perfect either,
you can still lose a day's work if say its done overnight.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119653538.846167.225170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I have no back-up...
> unless I start buring to DVD...

> I could care less about an day/hour of work.
> It is the total drive

Then completely automated backup to another drive is the answer.

Best done overnight because otherwise the backup will
be a significant load on the system while you are using it.

Best done to a SATA drive because you can choose to
unplug that, hot, if you say want to provide a bit more
security against theft of the system when you are out etc.

If you are confident that you cant be robbed and that the risk
of fire and flood are very low, an internal drive would be fine.

RAID is no use to you, its more hassle than its worth.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119652799.031453.280850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> The data drives that failed were from each PC.
> These were both older (cheap) large capcity drives.
> They were both IDE

OK, then it was likely bad luck that you lost 2 in 4 days.

> My SCSI drives are older, and have never had problems.
> The SCSI drives store WinXP and program files (one drive for each)
> Large SCSI drives are expensive, so I chose IDE for storage.
> SCIS is faster, so I have 15k rpm (smaller drives) for WinXP
> and program files.

You dont actually need the higher speed for XP and program files.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119653693.481623.53210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Could I make 1 PC into a sort of Data server... that would store
> and back it all up. (my wife could still use it to surf the web)

Yes, that would be fine.

> And then my main PC to do all the work???

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

U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

> Forget tape. Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest configurations.

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)...


--
U ribarnici se danima debeli sapuno cvokoce. By runf

Damir Lukic, calypso@_MAKNIOVO_fly.srk.fer.hr
a member of hr.comp.hardver FAQ-team
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:

> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>>> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.
>
>> Forget tape. Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest configurations.
>
> 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.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

<calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid> wrote in message
news:d9je7c$4uu$1@bagan.srce.hr...
> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
> >> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.
>
> > Forget tape. Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest
configurations.
>
> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...

No more, that's old think.

> Hotswap drives
> can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
> tape)...

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

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119666156.883624.278350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I always thought the access times on the SCSI drives were the lowest..

> And then there is the low CPU use.

Myth with modern IDE drives with DMA enabled.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...

> 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...

>> Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they could simply die much
>> easier than any tape)...

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

calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:

> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
>>> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
>
>> 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...

Define "serious".

>>> Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they could simply die much
>>> easier than any tape)...
>
>> Nonsense.
>
> 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.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Fishhead <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119668544.194432.175180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> The CPU use is probably better now.

No probably about it.

> But DMA has nothing to do with SCSI's faster access times.

I didnt comment on access times.

And access times arent relevant for your machine use anyway.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:YY3ve.1021512$w62.38844@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119668958.790008.8400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > I now have all SCSI in 1 PC and all IDE in the other.
> > They have the same MB, CPU, same memory and same OS.
> >
> > My SCSI is much faster, and is not bogged down in photo shop.
> >
> > The IDE drivers are UDMA133 type 7200 RPM
>
> Try an SATA Raptor and you wont be able to sense any performance difference
> between the two machines simply by using them.
>
> > My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM
>
> 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).
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:42bd51c1$0$21024$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:YY3ve.1021512$w62.38844@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> >
> > > My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM
> >
> > 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).

He said Fuji MAM. That's a U160 drive that does over 50MB/s.

I would never downgrade mine to a Raptor.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:42bd51c1$0$21024$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:YY3ve.1021512$w62.38844@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> > "Fishhead" <gregarpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119668958.790008.8400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > I now have all SCSI in 1 PC and all IDE in the other.
> > > They have the same MB, CPU, same memory and same OS.
> > >
> > > My SCSI is much faster, and is not bogged down in photo shop.
> > >
> > > The IDE drivers are UDMA133 type 7200 RPM
> >
> > Try an SATA Raptor and you wont be able to sense any performance
difference
> > between the two machines simply by using them.
> >
> > > My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM
> >
> > 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).

HUH!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

<calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid> wrote in message
news:d9jpgd$lup$2@bagan.srce.hr...
> U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
> >> Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup...
>
> > No more, that's old think.
>
> 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.

> >> Hotswap drives can't be used for backup (they could simply die much
> >> easier than any tape)...
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> 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.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:d9jrhj11hou@news1.newsguy.com...
> calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:
>
> > U comp.periphs.scsi Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> prica:
> >>> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.
> >
> >> Forget tape. Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest
configurations.
> >
> > 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


Although your heart is in the right place the phrase "disks as disposable
media" is off/misleading and ruins the point.

> is more
> cost-effective than a tape drive and tapes.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote
in message news:MPG.1d269d853678cbd1989766@localhost...
> gregarpp@yahoo.com wrote

>> In my home network.
>> 2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
>> All ran through router (wired and wireless)
>> Tablet does not need a redundant back-up

>> Main PC stores video and images
>> other PC stores images.

>> I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!

>> Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE
>> for backup Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.

> Not good.

> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

WAY past their useby date for personal workstations.

> Keep the peace(es).

Piss orf.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d9jtqr01k7d@enews2.newsguy.com
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:42bd51c1$0$21024$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:YY3ve.1021512$w62.38844@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> > >
> > > > My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM
> > >
> > > 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).
>
> 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.

>
> I would never downgrade mine to a Raptor.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

U comp.periphs.scsi J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> prica:
>> 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".

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

calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:

> U comp.periphs.scsi J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> prica:
>>> 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".
>
> 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.

>> 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?

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.

>> 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...

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,

<making sign of cross>

> 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"?


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

<calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid> wrote in
message news:d9je7c$4uu$1@bagan.srce.hr...
>Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote

>>> Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

>> Forget tape. Use removable SATA HDs
>> for backup on modest configurations.

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

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.

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:d9leh40bjh@news2.newsguy.com...
> calypso@fly.srk.fer.hr.invalid wrote:
>
> > U comp.periphs.scsi J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> prica:
> >>> 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".
> >
> > 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.
>
> >> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> >> 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...
>
> 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,
>
> <making sign of cross>
>
> > 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"?
>
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi (More info?)

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

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.