News U.S. Gov't eliminates tape data storage at the GSA to save $1M per year, but tape isn't dead yet

[umeng2002_2]

Magnetic tape is hardly the best way to store data long term. However, for storing large amounts of data in a cost effective manner, it is still good. It really depends on how the GSA was using the tapes and what standard they were using.

 

[hotaru251]

these people who assume tape is worse for long term storage shouldn't be in position to change this :| That just proves they don't understand it at all.

Magnetic tape is hardly the best way to store data long term. However, for storing large amounts of data in a cost effective manner, it is still good. It really depends on how the GSA was using the tapes and what standard they were using.

between tape & solid state tape is best of the 2 at the job.

solid state need to be powered as overtime it has passive power drain & once all power is gone you risk data loss.
Tape basically just need climate controlled w/o any risk of loss due to not being powered.
and honestly in stuff relating to Gov I would WANT it on a slower medium as in event someone gets to it they can't copy it as fast due to the limitations of its speed.

 

[cerata]

For context, last year's federal budget was $6.75 trillion, with a deficit of $1.8 trillion. A savings of $1 million/year would fill 0.00006% of that deficit hole, assuming the claim is even accurate. I suspect any savings are a false economy at best, fraudulent accounting at worst.

It is possible that the $1M / year could include the cost of some building(s) that those tape archives live in. Getting rid of the buildings may be the savings.

Here in Australia the National Archive used to own buildings that were purpose-built for its needs. The Howard government sold them off decades ago, but the NA's need for specialised buildings didn't go away, so it's stuck leasing them back. Unsurprisingly, this has not saved money in the long run.

 

[Krieger-San]

I find it funny; "modern storage". Doesn't say what it is?
Whatever it is, tape is one of the most reliable of stored correctly. Optical media doesn't last quite as long as tape, and anything flash is a non starter.
Cloud? Ridiculous, expensive, doesn't make any scene at all from many standpoints (security being my first thought! ).
Elon wrecking ball indeed.

 

[leclod]

I didn't know tape was this good !
(If the device didn't cost upwards 3000 I'd probably get one).

 

[leclod]

Optical media doesn't last quite as long as tape,

M-Disc are supposed to last long, stored correctly.
But they're nowhere near TB capacity.

 

[jp7189]

The cheapest storage for AWS is $1/TB/month. Tape is A LOT cheaper than that and don't have yearly costs associated with them outside of a place to keep the tapes.

I've never actually seen it stated what media AWS uses for deep archive, but I'm pretty darn sure it's tape. They quote 12-48 hours for data retrieval which says to me someone needs to run off and grab a tape set out of the vault and load it in the library. Azure is similar.

What I'm saying is, no matter where that data goes it's probably still going to be on tape, but at a higher service cost than doing it in house.

 

[snemarch]

inb4 it turns out they're getting rid of CAPEX for purchasing new tapes (and/or updating the robot retrieval system), but they're not factoring in the OPEX of paying for AWS Glacier...

 

[kanewolf]

inb4 it turns out they're getting rid of CAPEX for purchasing new tapes (and/or updating the robot retrieval system), but they're not factoring in the OPEX of paying for AWS Glacier...

Except that really doesn't change anything for the govt. There aren't tax advantages like there are for private businesses.

 

[jeremyj_83]

inb4 it turns out they're getting rid of CAPEX for purchasing new tapes (and/or updating the robot retrieval system), but they're not factoring in the OPEX of paying for AWS Glacier...

Corporations like using cloud services because OPEX looks better on their financial reports to shareholders than CAPEX for hardware. Even though they are going to be paying more in the long run on OPEX (easily 2-3x more than the CAPEX amount including the staffing).

What I'm saying is, no matter where that data goes it's probably still going to be on tape, but at a higher service cost than doing it in house.

I completely agree with this.

 

[snemarch]

Except that really doesn't change anything for the govt. There aren't tax advantages like there are for private businesses.

If the OPEX ends up being 5x more expensive than the CAPEX, it sure does matter