On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 12:04:05PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 01/04/08 10:23, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:56:19PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> On 01/03/08 20:30, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > > Right. What about things of great sentimental value? E.g. family > > photos? What about financial records? Sure 7 GB is chickenfeed. It > > fits on one DVD. However, to put that on the shelf, what to use to make > > it last? > > Chickenfeed is still important... to chickens. > > So I wasn't trying to denigrate your 7GB of important data, but to > express that, in today's world, tape would be a radically cost- > inefficient means of storing only 7GB. > > [snip] > >> > >> If a reputable archival company like Iron Mountain offers on-line > >> storage, then I'd encrypt it and drop it on their servers. > > > > So how do they store it? If they're just going to drop it onto a hard > > drive and forget about it, how is that different than me putting it on 2 > > hard drives: one on a backup server that runs so that hard drive errors > > show up; one in an external case that gets a fresh backup put on it > > every month or so and goes to the bank's safety deposit box? Or, if > > they're just going to archive it in a tape library, how is that > > different than me putting it on a tape and putting that in the bank? > > Nothing... except expertise. It's their *job* to monitor the SAN, > replacing failed disks, taking backups, etc.
So, ultimatly, for reliability, it ends up on tape. On-line storage places amortize the cost of a tape drive over the number of people's data it takes to fill a tape(s) (well, you get what I mean I hope). So if one could get an older-model tape drive (say, some version of DLT), tape remains the best for on-the-shelf off-line archival purposes? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]