Steer clear of any consumer grade FLASH technology, especially multi bit per cell.
FLASH HDD replacements have been to seriously compromise performance after not a lot of use due to file fragmentation caused by (IIRC) the wear levelling techniques used.
Actually they aren't, its a common misconception. A disk can fail at any time even when its powered down. This is why they aren't very good, there is a good chance they won't work when you power them up. The same is true of tape drives but not of the tapes unless they are mistreated. Tapes are also more robust than disks which is a distinct advantage when you are moving them to the fire safe.
That's why some people use disks, they are cheaper than tape systems. I use disks, but I can't a££ord a decent tape system.
Disks are fine for restoring images and stuff and for caching data before it is backed up properly.
Google have different data sets and probably use different strategies for each one.
You can use it as such but you can't rely on it. The main reason to use disks is for network backup solutions. A tape drive needs a constant stream of data, something you just don't get over networks. So you write it to disk and then to tape later.
You won't get approval for that, if you have let me know where so I can inform the FSA.
That would be poor storage and print through on analogue tapes. Its not the same problem with digital tapes where you can separate out the original stuff from the noise.
Tapes are inherently less likely to fail than a hard disk, electronics fail even when in storage.
Quite the opposite surely? Tier one to Disk VTL I'd imagine. Not that unusual in the real work but expensive (for archival anyway). Tier one is the most important stuff, and that needs to be recovered very quickly in a DR situation.
You do rely on it because for volatile data its the only backup you will ever have. In a disaster-recovery situation it is the data you will go to to restore the system.
You write it to disk. Sometimes you write some of it to tape later. Tape backups have their uses, as do disk backups. Tape is a very good medium for off-site backups.
The FSA have never objected and I'm sure that they have at least one person who understands modern system architecture. Tape backups are snapshots of the system state.
Given a properly designed system you can stream data back off of a tape quite just as quickly as you can get it from disk storage. But the additional delay in retrieving a tape limits its usefulness. When you need to get data back quickly there isn't any option but to use disk.
Just how long is it since you last worked on a high reliability system?
Yes but they don't rely on it to provide the restore. It isn't reliable enough to be the only system you can restore from. Even I backup to disk over the network first but there is no way it is safe, just convenient and easy to backup to something reliable.
And here I disagree with you. Tape's fine, when the worst-case is you go back to the previous daily backup. And you can afford that previous backup:
formatting link
"Responding easily to the challenge of storing longer term archive data without breaking the bank, tape provides an exceptionally cost-effective $/GB ratio. LTO-4 Ultrium costs only 5 cents per GB for its typical capacity of 1.6TB, while DAT 160 costs 24 cents per GB for their 160GB cartridges, SATA hard disk drive 35 cents per GB for 500GB drives, DVD+RW 63 cents per GB for a 4.7GB disk and removable disk drive $1.45 per GB for the 160GB cartridges."
It'll also be better at surviving the unplug and throw in the van scenario that good backups have to handle.
Depends on the tape stock. Some certainly had problems with oxide shedding. But not all. If it's intended for archive, careful storing helps too. I have some 1/4" tape dating from the '50s which still plays ok.
Trouble is who can tell until the years pass? Accelerated aging tests ain't always accurate. The one medium we know has a long life is film. And this can be used to store data digitally.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.