From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 375fe0ff for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:11:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3144C9C61E; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:11:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E5C93D74; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:11:41 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id BD73793D74; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:11:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp-out-3.mxes.net (smtp-out-3.mxes.net [198.205.123.68]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BB1393D71 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:11:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: from Customer-MUA (mua.mxes.net [10.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C99CD27362 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:11:37 -0500 (EST) From: To: "'The Unix Heritage Society'" References: <20191124225239.GG18200@mcvoy.com> <20191125032404.GM18200@mcvoy.com> <0a6fb097-fe79-1633-0205-1c45f0a56953@bitsavers.org> <96b55e5e-4b05-f7b7-c2ae-efdae7c18b2f@kilonet.net> <20191125174515.GY18200@mcvoy.com> <320e0de3-3bb5-4839-c209-1947efc89fdb@kilonet.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:11:34 -0500 Message-ID: <125201d5a3d4$eb504c00$c1f0e400$@ronnatalie.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1253_01D5A3AB.027AB930" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQFqarrJp/4uMHbAA13Pj1+DCoavOwE85Z1GAkiyLXECScoxEAKJuwnmASre4jEBFsiWygGwcaK8Af6T5QYBwZbM36fyeOpw Content-Language: en-us X-Sent-To: Subject: Re: [TUHS] Someone wants to use an exabyte X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1253_01D5A3AB.027AB930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Our problem wasn=E2=80=99t so much that the Exabyte tapes would go bad = as the drives themselves would keel over on a regular basis. = It=E2=80=99s pretty much what drove us away from them. The = intelligence community did a lot of studies on archival storage devices. = The fundamental truth was to keep refreshed in the online domain = rather than spending ages on static media. =20 =20 From: TUHS On Behalf Of John P. Linderman Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 4:08 PM To: Arthur Krewat Cc: The Unix Heritage Society Subject: Re: [TUHS] Someone wants to use an exabyte =20 I'm not an expert on mag tapes, but it makes sense to me that 9-track = tapes, where the tracks "line up" when the tape is wound onto a reel, = suffer more "print-through" than helical scan tapes, where tracks are = not aligned with those under them on a reel. I recall a suggestion that = 9-track tapes should be mounted and rewound once in a while, to reduce = print-through. We used Exabytes for disk backups for years, back when = tape capacity exceeded disk capacity. I doubt I'll see that again, but, = as noted I'm not an expert on mag tapes. =20 On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:35 PM Arthur Krewat > wrote: On 11/25/2019 12:45 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:40:22PM -0500, Arthur Krewat wrote: >> PS: DAT 4mm tape drives, especially whatever Sun was using, were = awful. > It's no secret that I enjoyed my years at Sun, but I can't defend = these > drives, I had the same experience. When I look back on it, the only > tapes that I remember being reliable where the 9 track reel to reel > and the QIC-150. Once it got to GB sized tapes, everything seemed > like crap. > The Exabyte 5GB and up stuff was pretty good. LTOs, after having worked=20 with them for the past 13 years, I can definitely say, are quit awesome. DLT tapes and especially robots, well, it took HP about 5 years to get=20 the firmware right for a certain robot, the model of which, I don't=20 recall ... art k. ------=_NextPart_000_1253_01D5A3AB.027AB930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Our = problem wasn=E2=80=99t so much that the Exabyte tapes would go bad as = the drives themselves would keel over on a regular basis.=C2=A0=C2=A0 = It=E2=80=99s pretty much what drove us away from them.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 = The intelligence community did a lot of studies on archival storage = devices.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 The fundamental truth was to keep refreshed = in the online domain rather than spending ages on static = media.

 

=C2=A0

From: TUHS = <tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org> On Behalf Of John P. = Linderman
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 4:08 = PM
To: Arthur Krewat <krewat@kilonet.net>
Cc: = The Unix Heritage Society = <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Someone wants = to use an exabyte

 

I'm not an expert on = mag tapes, but it makes sense to me that 9-track tapes, where the tracks = "line up" when the tape is wound onto a reel, suffer more = "print-through" than helical scan tapes, where tracks are not = aligned with those under them on a reel. I recall a suggestion that = 9-track tapes should be mounted and rewound once in a while, to reduce = print-through. We used Exabytes for disk backups for years, back when = tape capacity exceeded disk capacity. I doubt I'll see that again, but, = as noted I'm not an expert on mag = tapes.

 

On = Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:35 PM Arthur Krewat <krewat@kilonet.net> = wrote:

On 11/25/2019 12:45 PM, Larry McVoy = wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:40:22PM -0500, Arthur Krewat = wrote:
>> PS: DAT 4mm tape drives, especially whatever Sun was = using, were awful.
> It's no secret that I enjoyed my years at = Sun, but I can't defend these
> drives, I had the same = experience.  When I look back on it, the only
> tapes that I = remember being reliable where the 9 track reel to reel
> and the = QIC-150.  Once it got to GB sized tapes, everything seemed
> = like crap.
>

The Exabyte 5GB and up stuff was pretty good. = LTOs, after having worked
with them for the past 13 years, I can = definitely say, are quit awesome.

DLT tapes and especially = robots, well, it took HP about 5 years to get
the firmware right for = a certain robot, the model of which, I don't
recall ...

art = k.

------=_NextPart_000_1253_01D5A3AB.027AB930--