[geeks] Dying DAT72 drive?
Phil Stracchino
alaric at metrocast.net
Wed Jul 23 08:37:18 CDT 2008
Mark wrote:
> I thought DLT drives were mega-bucks but actually they aren't any
> more. I only need about 80GB of backup space, so a DLT 80/160 tape
> would handle that no sweat.
>
> Also, any brand recommendations?
FWIW, my experience is that LTO is more reliable than DLT and tends to
have a better price point. Last place that I worked that used DLT for
backup had an entire pile of failed DLT drives and autochangers.
I like IBM LTO drives better than HP ones. An LTO1 drive has 100GB
native capacity, and in my experience will hold about 130GB of
real-world data.
>> I think having the tape drive internal to the server your backing up
>> (as opposed to local) is only good in smaller, non-critical
>> applications (SOHO/SMB-class applications), if downtime is that big
>> a problem, I'd suggest considering a dedicated backup machine to
>> pull data over the network, so that when the tape drives fail, the
>> only machine impacted is the backup machine...
>
> That's not a bad idea ("Of course it's a good idea!" - God (Monty
> Python and the Holy Grail)). What concerns me is the addition of
> another machine running 24/7. Would something like a PIII-900 handle
> that kind of task sufficiently? I'd have thunk it ought to if it's
> only piping network data to a tape drive...
Data point: My backup server is my workstation, which is an Athlon
XP2400+. Load from running a simultaneous full backup of all my
machines renders the desktop a little sluggish, but by no means
unusable. The lion's share of that load is database I/O. (I'm using
Bacula, BTW.)
--
Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
alaric at caerllewys.net alaric at metrocast.net phil at co.ordinate.org
Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
More information about the geeks
mailing list