Z Systems Integration Manager Jay Gallentine hosts a seminar on LTO tape Backup and Archive solutions. This video was recorded and streamed using Telestream Wirecast.
@@ramzisabra9235 Thanks. Since he mentions a specific file browser that is only available on a specific operating system, it seems logical that every other file browser on every other operating system works fine for backing up.
@@ewolam Nice idea. Now you just have to know that it is impossible for the private user to make a 1:1 copy of the original medium. Yes yes, details... details and facts. Who cares.
Well, here's the thing: LTO releases new tapes every couple years, while they discontinue older tapes. Each tape generation is compatible with I think the last two tape drives, and vice versa, so there's pretty quickly a time, when you need to get new drives for your library or library robot, unless you stock up on tape drives and then just use whatever capacity you're left with. Also, remember to keep an older drive around, otherwise the new machines won't read the old tapes! The robustness of these tapes is a good asset, but they're best used as off-site backup solution. The expandability comparison is kinda flawed, because when starting with just one tape, you might as well start with one external drive, and then expand to a RAID, the expandability of LTO was never really a core target. It is scalability. No matter whether you're a small business, or a huge research institute gathering terabytes of data per day: LTO is able to "gather" all that. The LTO timeline as an argument doesn't quite work, either. Compared to solid state or mechanical drives, the data density and speed margin of LTO is not exactly all that much of a benefit, and quickly surpassed. The physical limitations of tape based media will eventually catch up, as you can only move the tape on and off a reel so fast. Also, note that these speeds do not include seek times, which is why tape can only be used for archiving. Sure, eventually physics will catch up with mechanical drives, and eventually solid state, too. But the fundamental differences are putting each in a different league. As I said, the "Backwards Compatability" at around 19:38, is actually LTO's biggest drawback: Ideally, each drive would read and write all tapes up to the current generation, but this is not the case. This "mild" form of planned obsolescence is built right in there. Tbh, the fact that LTFS is shilled as something innovative and new, while all it does it just putting something similar to FAT onto the tape, is pretty laughable. It should've been a part of the original spec. Without it, LTO is about as fantastic as old 9-track tape. The "awesomness" of having an LTFS index in the first 50GB is what every single floppy disk did since Shugart. Whether using LTFS or not, has nothing to do whether it's used by a library robot. It's just a file system, nothing more, nothing less. He compared LTO to Beta(Cam), which is funny, because even though newer BetaCam systems came out later in the lifespan of the system, newer drives were still compatible with older tapes. This entirely fails with LTO. Once you upgraded to a newer drive once or twice, you seriously need to revisit the older tapes so the old data is shoved onto newer tapes, or you need to hold on to an old drive. This is a management expense which simply does not make sense at all. A system where a backup or archive might become /obsolete/ because no drive can be found is seriously flawed.
We have been using LTO3 to backup our AS400 for the last 7 years since I started working there. LTO3 was there before I got there for many further several years. We have no issue getting tape. Just bought it brand new off Amazon from one of several manufacturers. Obviously you have no idea how to use this over many years. Stockpiling? Pah.
@@dlarge6502 Still on LTO-3, I'm laughing. Just think, in another few decades your great system might be upgraded to 5 and you will have a file table, just like floppies. Bah, you remind of apple fan boys. The OP was right, but far too polite, the cabal that owns this tech is doing its customers dry, and here you are... LOVING it.
LTO is a perfect solution for backups. Write speed while backing up, is often higher than on disk. The same goes for a complete restore. If you just need to restore a few files, that will indeed include some minutes waiting time. Error rates on LTO are much lower than on disk. Archiving on LTO can be a good idea, but only if you manage your archive. That usually means: After about 10 years, restore your full archive on a disk and copy it to LTO of the newest generation. Advantage: You will need much less tapes and storage space. Small disadvantage: If you forget to do that, your data will still be on your old tapes (no storage media keeps the data longer than tape), but better pray, when you hook up a well used, 20 years old tape drive. But you would run in the same problem with old hard drives. The lubrication there can get sticky or the electronics could fail and then your data is really gone. So with old tapes you have at least the option to buy another old drive, with hard drives you could be screwed. Main advantage of LTFS is being independent of backup software. You couldn't just write without additional software to a LTO-4 (or earlier) tape drive. So you had to buy additional backup software and every program used its own, propietary format. If I find a LTO-1 tape from 2000 and I don't know with what software it was written back then, I can't read it. Starting with LTO-5 LTFS solved that problem. Using tape is now as easy as using a thumb drive. If you have real large things to backup or archive, go for LTO. It's more safe and the price per TB falls with every tape you buy.
If you want to use tape for personal files, photos, videos and so on, a second hand LTO5 drive + SAS card is reasonably cheap and 160MB/s is not that slower than an external hard drive. In a professional setup you would charge clients to store one or more copies of their project files, so the drive pays by itself. Not to mention that the cost per terabyte of a new tape is going to be cheaper than what a regular hard drive costs.
The giant sword randomly appearing gave me the giggles
This guy is a genius
Are you that guy?
@@robertramsey8871 Oh no.
People still use firewire?
I think he's been saying the same talk since he started working there.
5:36 What is 'the Finder'?
macOS file manager
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finder_(software)
@@ramzisabra9235 Thanks. Since he mentions a specific file browser that is only available on a specific operating system, it seems logical that every other file browser on every other operating system works fine for backing up.
@@befru I believe this talk is primarily aimed at Mac users seeing as most media professionals (at least at the time of recording) use Mac OS.
Is like windows explorer for kids. :P
Imagine lto tapes for the ps5 game storage.
tapes are archive storage. Not high speed storage required for games.
@@Cat-vs7rc but PS5s are already filled
It's good for making spare copies in case of the game disc is broken or lost.
@@ewolam Nice idea. Now you just have to know that it is impossible for the private user to make a 1:1 copy of the original medium.
Yes yes, details... details and facts. Who cares.
Well, here's the thing: LTO releases new tapes every couple years, while they discontinue older tapes. Each tape generation is compatible with I think the last two tape drives, and vice versa, so there's pretty quickly a time, when you need to get new drives for your library or library robot, unless you stock up on tape drives and then just use whatever capacity you're left with. Also, remember to keep an older drive around, otherwise the new machines won't read the old tapes! The robustness of these tapes is a good asset, but they're best used as off-site backup solution. The expandability comparison is kinda flawed, because when starting with just one tape, you might as well start with one external drive, and then expand to a RAID, the expandability of LTO was never really a core target. It is scalability. No matter whether you're a small business, or a huge research institute gathering terabytes of data per day: LTO is able to "gather" all that. The LTO timeline as an argument doesn't quite work, either. Compared to solid state or mechanical drives, the data density and speed margin of LTO is not exactly all that much of a benefit, and quickly surpassed. The physical limitations of tape based media will eventually catch up, as you can only move the tape on and off a reel so fast. Also, note that these speeds do not include seek times, which is why tape can only be used for archiving. Sure, eventually physics will catch up with mechanical drives, and eventually solid state, too. But the fundamental differences are putting each in a different league. As I said, the "Backwards Compatability" at around 19:38, is actually LTO's biggest drawback: Ideally, each drive would read and write all tapes up to the current generation, but this is not the case. This "mild" form of planned obsolescence is built right in there. Tbh, the fact that LTFS is shilled as something innovative and new, while all it does it just putting something similar to FAT onto the tape, is pretty laughable. It should've been a part of the original spec. Without it, LTO is about as fantastic as old 9-track tape. The "awesomness" of having an LTFS index in the first 50GB is what every single floppy disk did since Shugart. Whether using LTFS or not, has nothing to do whether it's used by a library robot. It's just a file system, nothing more, nothing less. He compared LTO to Beta(Cam), which is funny, because even though newer BetaCam systems came out later in the lifespan of the system, newer drives were still compatible with older tapes. This entirely fails with LTO. Once you upgraded to a newer drive once or twice, you seriously need to revisit the older tapes so the old data is shoved onto newer tapes, or you need to hold on to an old drive. This is a management expense which simply does not make sense at all. A system where a backup or archive might become /obsolete/ because no drive can be found is seriously flawed.
We have been using LTO3 to backup our AS400 for the last 7 years since I started working there. LTO3 was there before I got there for many further several years.
We have no issue getting tape. Just bought it brand new off Amazon from one of several manufacturers. Obviously you have no idea how to use this over many years.
Stockpiling? Pah.
@@dlarge6502 you are right. I have a tape drive from the late 90s (not LTO) and I can still get tapes easy.
Yes ultimately it's a scam in fact
@@dlarge6502 Still on LTO-3, I'm laughing. Just think, in another few decades your great system might be upgraded to 5 and you will have a file table, just like floppies. Bah, you remind of apple fan boys. The OP was right, but far too polite, the cabal that owns this tech is doing its customers dry, and here you are... LOVING it.
LTO is a perfect solution for backups. Write speed while backing up, is often higher than on disk. The same goes for a complete restore. If you just need to restore a few files, that will indeed include some minutes waiting time. Error rates on LTO are much lower than on disk. Archiving on LTO can be a good idea, but only if you manage your archive. That usually means: After about 10 years, restore your full archive on a disk and copy it to LTO of the newest generation. Advantage: You will need much less tapes and storage space. Small disadvantage: If you forget to do that, your data will still be on your old tapes (no storage media keeps the data longer than tape), but better pray, when you hook up a well used, 20 years old tape drive. But you would run in the same problem with old hard drives. The lubrication there can get sticky or the electronics could fail and then your data is really gone. So with old tapes you have at least the option to buy another old drive, with hard drives you could be screwed. Main advantage of LTFS is being independent of backup software. You couldn't just write without additional software to a LTO-4 (or earlier) tape drive. So you had to buy additional backup software and every program used its own, propietary format. If I find a LTO-1 tape from 2000 and I don't know with what software it was written back then, I can't read it. Starting with LTO-5 LTFS solved that problem. Using tape is now as easy as using a thumb drive. If you have real large things to backup or archive, go for LTO. It's more safe and the price per TB falls with every tape you buy.
The drive cost thousands of bucks
Yeah but if you have a 5000 tape drives and 5000 tapes, that's only an extra dollar per tape.
Shame they are so expensive and slow
If you want to use tape for personal files, photos, videos and so on, a second hand LTO5 drive + SAS card is reasonably cheap and 160MB/s is not that slower than an external hard drive.
In a professional setup you would charge clients to store one or more copies of their project files, so the drive pays by itself. Not to mention that the cost per terabyte of a new tape is going to be cheaper than what a regular hard drive costs.
Vernon Island
Weldon Plains
Great content. The presenter sounds like he just hit puberty
You are obviously thirsty for his Alpha energy
Stracke Trail
Steve Shoals
Dolly Forges
Braun Heights
Metz Square