Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!ria!uwovax!brent
From: brent@uwovax.uwo.ca (Brent Sterner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec
Subject: Re: Exabyte (8mm) versus DAT (4mm)
Message-ID: <6438.269dd790@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Date: 13 Jul 90 18:15:44 GMT
References: <9007061713.AA01816@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> <1881@proa.SV.DG.COM> <13113@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1990Jul9.230745.26256@hayes.fai.alaska.edu> <3201.269c66a7@decus.com.au>
Organization: CCS, U. of Western Ontario
Lines: 29

In article <3201.269c66a7@decus.com.au>, churchill@decus.com.au (Jack Churchill) writes:
> 
> I think the time is well overdue for a proper and unbiased evaluation of
> all backup mediums.  This includes optical disks as well as 4 & 8mm.  We
> have been using 8mm for about 8 months with no problems.  The only complaints
> are the search and transfer speeds during restores when people (not me)
> are in a hurry to read a file.

	Our site is an academic computing centre.  For us, it is also
	the restore time that matters most.  That is what DAT seems to
	offer (over 8mm, which is price competitive - optical doesn't
	seem to for media).  And that is the main reason we delayed the
	purchase of any cartridge backup system.

	In summary, we backup up all our disks regularly (we have ops
	staff available to do backups overnight).  If the backups are
	slow, it just doesn't matter (within reason).  But if a faculty
	member clobbers a file and wants it back, it's time warp time.
	The other useage for backups, a full spindle restore, just does
	not happen often enough to really matter.

	I'm curious, does restore time matter to other sites like it does
	to us?  b.
--
Brent Sterner                     Technical Support Manager, Academic Systems
Fast:  <BRENT@uwo.ca>             <BRENT@UWOVAX.BITNET>
       <129.100.2.13>             Telephone  (519)661-2151 x6036
Slow:  Computing & Communications Services, Natural Sciences Building
       The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 5B7