Comments on: Going Tapeless in Enterprise http://flickerdown.com/2009/01/going-tapeless-in-enterprise/ a Blog dedicated to storage and technology Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:51:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Brad Jensen http://flickerdown.com/2009/01/going-tapeless-in-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-116 Brad Jensen Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:44:01 +0000 http://flickerdown.com/?p=425#comment-116 As far as the economy of tape versus disk media goes, another issue to think about is compression. Most of our IBM midrange users get 6 to 1 compression on disk versus 2 to 1 on tape. That gives disk a 3 to 1 advantage versus tape. So if a 400 GB tape holds 800 GB compressed, 400 GB of disk holds 2.4 TB compressed. Tape has to be three times cheaper than disk, per raw gigabyte, to compete - and it isn't.<br><br>Another issue here is that on the average, a tape is going to be 2/3 full or less - since it comes in fixed sizes, and you nearly always end up with a backup tape that is not full. <br><br>But the real cost of tape is the cost of the human being that has to handle it at some point - and the increased chances of errors that come from manual handling of tapes. As far as the economy of tape versus disk media goes, another issue to think about is compression. Most of our IBM midrange users get 6 to 1 compression on disk versus 2 to 1 on tape. That gives disk a 3 to 1 advantage versus tape. So if a 400 GB tape holds 800 GB compressed, 400 GB of disk holds 2.4 TB compressed. Tape has to be three times cheaper than disk, per raw gigabyte, to compete – and it isn't.

Another issue here is that on the average, a tape is going to be 2/3 full or less – since it comes in fixed sizes, and you nearly always end up with a backup tape that is not full.

But the real cost of tape is the cost of the human being that has to handle it at some point – and the increased chances of errors that come from manual handling of tapes.

]]> By: dave http://flickerdown.com/2009/01/going-tapeless-in-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-105 dave Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:51:04 +0000 http://flickerdown.com/?p=425#comment-105 Brad, good points!! thanks for your feedback! cheers, Dave Brad,

good points!! thanks for your feedback!

cheers,

Dave

]]> By: Brad Jensen http://flickerdown.com/2009/01/going-tapeless-in-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-104 Brad Jensen Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:44:01 +0000 http://flickerdown.com/?p=425#comment-104 As far as the economy of tape versus disk media goes, another issue to think about is compression. Most of our IBM midrange users get 6 to 1 compression on disk versus 2 to 1 on tape. That gives disk a 3 to 1 advantage versus tape. So if a 400 GB tape holds 800 GB compressed, 400 GB of disk holds 2.4 TB compressed. Tape has to be three times cheaper than disk, per raw gigabyte, to compete - and it isn't.<br><br>Another issue here is that on the average, a tape is going to be 2/3 full or less - since it comes in fixed sizes, and you nearly always end up with a backup tape that is not full. <br><br>But the real cost of tape is the cost of the human being that has to handle it at some point - and the increased chances of errors that come from manual handling of tapes. As far as the economy of tape versus disk media goes, another issue to think about is compression. Most of our IBM midrange users get 6 to 1 compression on disk versus 2 to 1 on tape. That gives disk a 3 to 1 advantage versus tape. So if a 400 GB tape holds 800 GB compressed, 400 GB of disk holds 2.4 TB compressed. Tape has to be three times cheaper than disk, per raw gigabyte, to compete – and it isn't.

Another issue here is that on the average, a tape is going to be 2/3 full or less – since it comes in fixed sizes, and you nearly always end up with a backup tape that is not full.

But the real cost of tape is the cost of the human being that has to handle it at some point – and the increased chances of errors that come from manual handling of tapes.

]]>