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=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 e5fb5327 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:31:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6F0179C5F6; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:31:12 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D669C5E9; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:30:52 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="qQsNYNpw"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id CD7339C5E9; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:30:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f45.google.com (mail-vs1-f45.google.com [209.85.217.45]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22A993D74 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:30:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vs1-f45.google.com with SMTP id i13so6335264vso.13 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:30:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1p6vlkqkKR17iS8I6p2WY59UA+4Wm2ClISlZg2gfOkc=; b=qQsNYNpwyWuyzHJC8CtndOosRCmbCE0z1ZNqWj51SxKTVxaS23tT/rcENOsuJtslVP RRv5cV7POIyGuPRZX3jvU9DaAgjehLptGu99AcD3tQEXrZg9yocFyC1jkiKv0W5WumvH 4EhVflqRlAVYEqZn0+tUIa9k2EsQI8VPfIB+uBroFvx4GumPXYpzsi7UIP4yQKRNjQU/ YIc4RbzDECtr8PZpx/RCplFrnmrL0/bw3kDutWWC4FXghTcasn6eAIqFsC5UpVMaWyt/ rBegzkFtnBvGF5oDnMqmVU9SU4PcgPhbaAphXIXQt1TfsPwz2b8NMjEeNdKxFgiqVWHv OQkQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1p6vlkqkKR17iS8I6p2WY59UA+4Wm2ClISlZg2gfOkc=; b=Xb9dn7svauh2RNitO3SOoHyEixsWcQWHPUr0XmvHCgJcl3PnqeR7syvBlwkcFo3Pis hLA0jlPHugTw2Ljfv26ehHZjlz2Bf4IwOZX1M4zP8irUHarrDG7ukOEEy2DYtwRavFnO ylf5LoV8nHoW69MwjreUsArP8sUv0fMqXI9ztE3LE7jHIvnOXFbNCKxXGgV54wqNMyyU fFU3kh3uQ1rmas5DTZ79lHsFCURbtW9G3PduuzTUuFLgW4mIVR2ekT0Q6Ht6FWsuRJKH prZl8kmBT1J23vvvwWCiVbz9OAitnlC+QlS8rQ/0xqsOhrrb2khGOkrBGQLU6+6ahro7 0+rQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVwmphfdEFx+7bgLqyflcyiJlUn2yWBugfYNPPJIelgZrgwLj/G TAmfhLxk/sHQADDsrth94qJnvjgRrK+5fmEeUv8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy3sGU0AznVDc2iMD0O7e3Z2OSz2eJw6oAi4EplIdhIhZIsJkppWwMH8GGI0ynPDiiEHWa5pkOzKXOPgcCMlpg= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fd53:: with SMTP id g19mr21215879vsr.169.1574717447608; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:30:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <125201d5a3d4$eb504c00$c1f0e400$@ronnatalie.com> In-Reply-To: <125201d5a3d4$eb504c00$c1f0e400$@ronnatalie.com> From: "John P. Linderman" Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:30:35 -0500 Message-ID: To: Ron Natalie Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000161f090598327ae5" 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: , Cc: The Unix Heritage Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000161f090598327ae5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fair enough, Ron. I recall that we had to replace Exabyte drives more often than 9-track drives. On the other hand, I don't recall ever having an Exabyte tape go bad, or being unable to restore a lost file (or entire drive). Replacing a drive was chump change compared to losing a drive. Plus, the Exabyte tapes were compact, and could easily have a paper label inserted to indicate what was on them when hundreds were stored side-by-side on a shelf. My labels were roundly mocked by Tom Limoncelli in one of his Sysadmin books, but when a user came in wanting a file restored, being able to identify which tape contained the most recent backup was no laughing matter (to the user). On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 4:12 PM wrote: > 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 pret= ty 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. > > > > > > *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 > > > > 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-tra= ck > tapes should be mounted and rewound once in a while, to reduce > print-through. We used Exabytes for disk backups for years, back when tap= e > capacity exceeded disk capacity. I doubt I'll see that again, but, as not= ed > I'm not an expert on mag tapes. > > > > 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 > 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. > > --000000000000161f090598327ae5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Fai= r enough, Ron. I recall that we had to replace Exabyte drives more often th= an 9-track drives. On the other hand, I don't recall ever having an Exa= byte tape go bad, or being unable to restore a lost file (or entire drive).= Replacing a drive was chump change compared to losing a drive. Plus, the E= xabyte tapes were compact, and could easily have a paper label inserted to = indicate what was on them when hundreds were stored side-by-side on a shelf= . My labels were roundly mocked by Tom Limoncelli in one of his Sysadmin bo= oks, but when a user came in wanting a file restored, being able to identif= y which tape contained the most recent backup was no laughing matter (to th= e user).

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 4:12 PM <ron@ronnatalie.com> wrote:

Our problem wasn= =E2=80=99t so much that the Exabyte tapes would go bad as the drives themse= lves would keel over on a regular basis.=C2=A0=C2=A0 It=E2=80=99s pretty mu= ch what drove us away from them.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 The intelligence communi= ty 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 sp= ending ages on static media.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

From: TUHS <tuhs-bounces@minnie.= tuhs.org> On Behalf Of John P. Linderman
Sent: Mond= ay, 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

=C2=A0

I'm not an expert on mag tapes, but it make= s 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 rewou= nd once in a while, to reduce print-through. We used Exabytes for disk back= ups for years, back when tape capacity exceeded disk capacity. I doubt I= 9;ll see that again, but, as noted I'm not an expert on mag tapes.

=C2=A0=

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

On 11/25/2019 12:45 PM, L= arry 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 a= t Sun, but I can't defend these
> drives, I had the same experien= ce.=C2=A0 When I look back on it, the only
> tapes that I remember be= ing reliable where the 9 track reel to reel
> and the QIC-150.=C2=A0 = Once it got to GB sized tapes, everything seemed
> like crap.
>=

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

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

art k.

--000000000000161f090598327ae5--