Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!labmed.ucsf.edu!brianc
From: brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Reliability Exabyte tapes
Message-ID: <17815@cgl.ucsf.EDU>
Date: 6 Mar 91 00:36:41 GMT
References: <3235@canisius.UUCP> <7HKYJ54@dri.com> <1991Feb27.191216.5859@sobeco.com>
Sender: daemon@cgl.ucsf.edu
Organization: Dept. of Lab Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
Lines: 19

In article <1991Feb27.191216.5859@sobeco.com> sdesmara@sobeco.com (s.desmarais) writes:
>>In article <1781@svin02.info.win.tue.nl>, hansb@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Hans Bouw) writes:
>>  ...
#>> The consensus was that the most reliable tapes were Exabyte's and
#>> SONY P6-120MPs.  Re the latter, there was a consensus that 1 out of
#>> apx. every 40-50 cartridges or so were found to be defective.  Our
#>> relatively short-term experience (apx. 7 months) has con- firmed this.

>Is there any comparative study that was done on the reliability of the
>different media available (the ol' 9-track, exabytes, streamers,
>worm disks/laser disks, etc).  If so, could you point me to one?

Especially DAT... sinice this is the most comparable subsystem to the 
Exabyte...
--
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|