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)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram