LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2016

ARSCLIST January 2016

Subject:

Re: LTO vs HDD

From:

Mark Donahue <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:50:39 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (199 lines)

Richard,
I did a quick calculation based on what I have in the vault today and came
up with some interesting numbers about the direction of data storage rates.

Umatic 500 * 2 * 0.35GB=350GB (1981-1996)
DAT 600 * 2 * 0.65GB=780GB (1988-2000)
CD-R 900 * 0.75GB=675GB (1992-2010)
3324 200 * 12 * 0.75GB=1800GB (1988-2000)
DTRS 800 * 8 * 1GB=6400GB (1997-2006)
Hard Drives 600 * 1500=900000GB (0.9PB) (2001-Present) (This is a
guesstimate. In the beginning there are some 100 and 500GB drives, but we
have been burning though about 100 3tb drives a year for the last 3 years
and it is only getting larger)


At LTO7 prices of $48/TB for redundant copies plus $6000 for a pair of LTO7
drives, is virtually identical to a pair of 12 drive storage servers with
spinning discs at $52/TB 10 drive RAID6 with 2 hot spares.
The bigger difference here is the cost of electricity. A pair of servers
running 24/7/365 is about $900/year. (3741kWH * $0.12=$445/yr each)
So by my calculation, up to around 50 TB it makes sense to have online
spinning storage, beyond that offline tape makes more sense.
All the best,
-mark

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> I concur with Corey here--I responded to Tom's new thread at greater
> length, but tape was much more economical than spinning disks a decade ago,
> and both have scaled upwards, moving the crossover point.
>
> I'm now at the 10 TB level for dual RAID-6 local storage with an
> additional 5 TB of single RAID-6 local storage.
>
> A funny story about Sony marketing. In the late 1990s they showed a robot
> that could hold 1000 TB of data on tape. They called it the Peta-File. The
> next year, it was changed to Peta-Site. That was a decade and a half ago.
>
> My contention is that tape does not make sense for data storage until you
> have a complete robotic system which includes tape cassette usage history
> and automatic regeneration of tapes that have been used a number of times.
>
> While the number of "full file passes" on LTO tape has increased, it is
> still relatively low and it's not useful for storage with many retrievals.
>
> Anything that requires manual storage module shuffling is doomed to not be
> used as regularly as necessary--personal experience with my off-site backup
> confirms this.
>
> Here is an example of where I think LTO tape (and I think LTO is now the
> only viable data tape format) becomes useful:
> http://www.quantum.com/products/tapelibraries/index.aspx
>
> This is a continuation of what I knew as ADIC storage, they were bought
> out by Quantum in 2006.
>
> It is now a no brainer (in my opinion) to provide 10-20 TB in a single
> RAID-6 enclosure. Eight 3 TB drives in a RAID-6 configuration provides for
> about 15.8 TB of usable storage. Going to 4 TB drives would increase that
> to about 21 TB. (Rememeber, drives are measured using 1000X multipliers
> while files are measured using 1024X mulipliers. Linux properly calls those
> numbers TiB and GiB (for binary).)
>
> 6 TB drives are commonly available now in RAID-tuned HDDs and for backup
> use (not server use) the WD Red drives seem to be good. I am using this
> line in 2, 3, and 4 TB (8, 8, 5 of each, respectively). So far, I had to
> replace one 3 TB (which were new at the time) about 8,000 hours in...it was
> an easy warranty replacement.
>
> My main server states.
>
> Used: 8.45 TB
> Available: 7.41 TB
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On 1/27/2016 8:57 PM, Corey Bailey wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> The answer is relatively simple: Money
>> You and I think about storage in terms of a Terabyte or two. General
>> Motors and corporations of that size have to think in terms of multiple
>> Peta-bytes. LTO becomes the least expensive method. After the data is on
>> the tape, verification and migration is done robotically.
>>
>> Those that are considering LTO need to know that the format (drives,
>> etc.) is only backward compatible for two generations and LTO-7 is on
>> the horizon.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Corey
>> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
>> www.baileyzone.net
>>
>> On 1/27/2016 4:36 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>> Could someone explain why a somewhat antiquated magnetic tape-based
>>> storage system is preferable to several copies across several hard
>>> drives? I just can't see any sense in using tape systems anymore for
>>> data security, but I'm not a computer-storage expert, just a guy who
>>> stores a lot of data.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hood, Mark" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 6:41 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] LTO vs HDD
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Thanks as always for sharing your experience and insights on all of these
>>> topics.
>>>
>>> Would you be comfortable sharing the make and model of the RAID-6 NAS
>>> units you are using, and any comments about how well they have performed
>>> to your expectations?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> Mark Hood
>>> Associate Professor of Music
>>> Department of Recording Arts
>>> IU Jacobs School of Music
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/27/16, 3:36 PM, "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List on
>>> behalf of Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, All,
>>>>
>>>> I saw this thread and was going to ignore it, but decided not to once I
>>>> found out that RDX was HDD-in-an-otterbox merci, Henri, and thanks for
>>>> the image, Lou. Otters are wonderful--see "Ring of Bright Water" (The
>>>> book) and Point Lobos State Park.
>>>>
>>>> LTO was around while I was still doing broadcast consulting and, at the
>>>> time (late 1990s, early 2000s).
>>>>
>>>> I struggled long and hard about how to store things and realized if I
>>>> were going to become involved with LTO, I would need two drives (how
>>>> else can you be even remotely certain that your tapes are readable once
>>>> your single drive dies--I certainly saw that in the early days of PC
>>>> tape backup. At that point, the cost becomes excessive.
>>>>
>>>> My philosophy now is: Any data I want to keep does not live solely on a
>>>> PC.
>>>>
>>>> I have two in-house RAID-6 NAS units,  one backing up the other; an ammo
>>>> case of 2.5-inch HDDs off-site (2 TB 2.5-inch USB 3.0 drives are pretty
>>>> economical these days and are USB-powered).
>>>>
>>>> One son has been migrated to the cloud where Dropbox backs up and
>>>> mirrors his two on-site laptops. Here, I harvest all new files (but not
>>>> updates to prevent pollution of existing files) and store them on my
>>>> RAID-6 NAS units to protect against a Dropbox failure or hacking. The
>>>> other son will do it soon,  but the first one is potentially going far
>>>> away to school next fall for his Masters (Wichita and Edmonton are on
>>>> the list) so I wanted to get some closer-in history with the system.
>>>>
>>>> RAID-6 allows the failure of any two disks without losing data and the
>>>> data does not have to be chopped up into 1 or 2 TB chunks as it does
>>>> with HDDs.
>>>>
>>>> I do not keep CF/SD cards, I copy and verify the copy and then recycle
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
>>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>>>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager