If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 03:47:08 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote: "Malcolm Weir" wrote in message Off-line, on-site is a typical tape archive. On that we agree with the thread title. Yet sadly for your bias, there is a difference between archive and backup (i.e. you are confused) and your contention that there is such a thing as a "reliable" backup *or* archive is laughable! In the real world (i.e. the place you don't inhabit, Ron), _nothing_ is "reliable", it's all varying degrees of unreliability. And *some* tapes are more reliable than *some* optical, and *some* magnetic disk solutions are more reliable than *some* tapes. But only a fool would conclude that *all* tape is more reliable than *all* disk. Hi Ron. Malc. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ron Reaugh wrote: "Malcolm Weir" wrote in message news Ron is mangling the fact that for archive purposes, the physical characteristics of WORM opticals have resulted in that media being approved as a tamper-proof archive. Nonsense as anyone who reads this whole thread can see for themselves. TDK says that their CD-R are good for over 50 years. That statement does not contradict Malcolm's. -- I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-' Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U` |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Malcolm Weir wrote:
"Rod Reaugh" wrote: "Malcolm Weir" wrote: Tapes are NOT for long term storage. Only some opticals have been legally approved. Errr... false. Ron is mangling the fact that for archive purposes, the physical characteristics of WORM opticals have resulted in that media being approved as a tamper-proof archive. Nonsense as anyone who reads this whole thread can see for themselves. TDK says that their CD-R are good for over 50 years. Poor Ron, he gets so confused! One might assume, from reading the above, that TDK's CD-Rs had been "legally approved"! Which is, of course, false. But tape has been approved by people like the National Media Lab for long-term storage. Wacko, they have nothing to do with the government Errr... the US Government provided the funding for them, under the National Technology Alliance program, which was a DoD/CIA think (which became a NIMA thing, and is now a NGA thing, but all the players remained the same, just the acronyms changed). but are a tape manufacturer. And TDK *isn't* a CD-ROM manufacturer???? So Ron would have us believe that TDK's claim that their CD-Rs are "good for over 50 years" is somehow valid, and the claims of the government-funded NML research managed by 3M/Imation are not. Hmmm... This is like four separate issues, in just the last few days, in which Ronnie has completely embarrassed himself. Still, anyone who believes that CD-R is magically stable (despite being dye-based) while magnetic tape isn't stable has fundamentally failed to understand the issues involved. Neither are stable... but both can be made pretty darn good *if* you treat them right! Also I notice that their controversial pages on media lifetime aren't on their website any longer. The NTA restructured about 2 or 3 years ago, with the NML, the NCAT, and whatever-it-was-called-at-Sarnoff (NIDL, I think) being rolled up into a new entity managed by a single corporation (as opposed to three separate management contracts). So the government-funded NML ceased to exist at that time. But their research hasn't gone away, even though their funding source has. Sorry, Ron, you'll have to get a clue! Don't hold your breath. Rod^Hn's an idiot. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Malcolm Weir wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 02:19:19 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote: "Malcolm Weir" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:14:47 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote: [ Snip ] In short, I need some type of recommendation, in writing, in some type of white paper, from some type of credible sources, that SDLT tape backup drives, at least for the purpose of long term archiving Tapes have NEVER been considered a viable "long term archiving" medium. Neither, though, has anything else, except for paper. No, some opticals. Nope. While the media may be (relatively) stable, the mechanisms to process that media is the problem! How many 12-inch WORM drives do you have? Tape is, and has been proven to be, better than most things, and particularly better than disk whose failure modes tend to result in massive data inaccessibility more often than those of tape. However, this issue is not tape-vs-anything else, it's on-line and on-site vs. off-line and off-site. Not these days as on-line and off-site is becoming viable. It's been "viable" for decades, for some value of "viable". Hey what about off-line and on-site...there must be a market for that or is that called DAT. Off-line, on-site is a typical tape archive. Reliability is always the sum of all such factors and any backup strategy should look more towards the least common denominator...Murphy....an automatic corrollary to Murphiy's law is that tapes are unrelaible. The proof of that is the incredible cycle strategies that have developed over the years for tape backups. That comes from the fact that too frequently the tape isn't usable for any one of a number of reasons. Substitute "backup medium" for tape and there would be something useful in the above... Nope, I got it right with "tape". If you had much of a clue (which is debatable), you'd understand that *any* backup medium is inherently "unreliable", in the sense that it can (and does) fail. All you are trying to argue is that one subtype of medium is intrinsically worse than others, which is obviously nonsense given the different possible implementations of that subtype. For example, no-one with any integrity would claim that, say, Zip disks were a "reliable" media, but it takes a certain amount of ignorance to extrapolate from that data point to the conclusion that removable disks are unreliable (which is what you've done with tape). Add to the mix the issue of undiscovered problems, and you are *beginning* to touch on why we have complex backup medium strategies. Here here. Well said! |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Reaugh wrote:
"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message news On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:33:16 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote: "mschlack" wrote in message om... -snip One thing to clarify: do you have both restore and archive needs? Restore would be to rebuild after a disaster or after losing or corrupting specific files. Archive would be for long term retention -- rarely used data that's taking up space otherwise but would need to be occasionally mounted at some future point (like parts drawings for obsolete products). If you're truly archiving, then tape probably is a must (or optical), since the reliability of data that's never read on disk drives can't be assumed for many years (those little old bits can flip on you). SDLT is a solid choice, in any event. Tapes are NOT for long term storage. Only some opticals have been legally approved. Errr... false. Ron is mangling the fact that for archive purposes, the physical characteristics of WORM opticals have resulted in that media being approved as a tamper-proof archive. Nonsense as anyone who reads this whole thread can see for themselves. TDK says that their CD-R are good for over 50 years. So that means they have been "legally approved" ? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Carl Farrington" wrote in message ... Ron Reaugh wrote: "Malcolm Weir" wrote in message news On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:33:16 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote: "mschlack" wrote in message om... -snip One thing to clarify: do you have both restore and archive needs? Restore would be to rebuild after a disaster or after losing or corrupting specific files. Archive would be for long term retention -- rarely used data that's taking up space otherwise but would need to be occasionally mounted at some future point (like parts drawings for obsolete products). If you're truly archiving, then tape probably is a must (or optical), since the reliability of data that's never read on disk drives can't be assumed for many years (those little old bits can flip on you). SDLT is a solid choice, in any event. Tapes are NOT for long term storage. Only some opticals have been legally approved. Errr... false. Ron is mangling the fact that for archive purposes, the physical characteristics of WORM opticals have resulted in that media being approved as a tamper-proof archive. Nonsense as anyone who reads this whole thread can see for themselves. TDK says that their CD-R are good for over 50 years. So that means they have been "legally approved" ? Nope, as I said before only some opticals(worms I think) have been approved. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 20:31:05 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote: Tapes are NOT for long term storage. Only some opticals have been legally approved. Errr... false. Ron is mangling the fact that for archive purposes, the physical characteristics of WORM opticals have resulted in that media being approved as a tamper-proof archive. Nonsense as anyone who reads this whole thread can see for themselves. TDK says that their CD-R are good for over 50 years. So that means they have been "legally approved" ? Nope, as I said before only some opticals(worms I think) have been approved. I.e. Ronny has mangled the fact that for archive purposes (etc.) Ronny has problems largely resulting from his (low-end) view of the industry. He would have no clue how to manage a petabyte archive, but that doesn't prevent him from making definitive statements on the matter. Nor does it prevent him from aggressively applying double standards, e.g. by citing TDK as an authority for their own products while simultaneously dismissing the government funded research of the NML on the basis that the NML was managed and run by 3M/Imation. Malc. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Malcolm Weir writes:
Nor does it prevent him from aggressively applying double standards, e.g. by citing TDK as an authority for their own products while simultaneously dismissing the government funded research of the NML on the basis that the NML was managed and run by 3M/Imation. .... who, for what it's worth (not much), have produced not only tape media, but magneto-optical and various CD/CD-R media over the years. Anyway, Ron remains unwilling to listen & unable to understand. -- Anton |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Upgrade Report [GeekTech: New App Makes Backups Easier - 09/07/2004] | Ablang | General | 1 | December 17th 04 06:14 PM |
Upgrade Report [GeekTech: New App Makes Backups Easier - 09/07/2004] | Ablang | General | 0 | December 15th 04 04:10 AM |
VXA-2 tape really full ? | Lynn McGuire | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | February 23rd 04 05:47 PM |
Making a pure IDE/ATAPI tape drive work in a USB drive enclosure. (0/1) | Bloke at the pennine puddle (Replace n.a.v.d with | General | 0 | October 11th 03 05:02 PM |
exabyte vxa-2 tape drive error | Lynn McGuire | Storage & Hardrives | 4 | September 16th 03 07:56 AM |