On 22/04/17 12:37, Rob Malpass via Hampshire wrote:
>
> I agree with just about everything that’s been said – though prior to
> one of the replies I didn’t know what an archive disk was.
>
> The problem for me is
>
> a)Cost
>
> b)Durability
>
> Agree that HDD should last for a few years – but we’ve all seen hdds
> fail. From what I’ve read, unless you can spread your backups across
> sites (which may be an option) but tape seems the most durable
> solution – optical disks are nowhere near reliable for data you don’t
> want to lose.
>
> I find it amazing hdd technology (which we’ve has since the 70s) is
> still the medium of preference. When someone finally does crack this
> (I guess when SSDs do finally take over in terms of capacity and
> price) we’ll all look back on HDD as rather primitive. I guess we’re
> just in that period of limbo!
>
> Cheers
>
> Rob
>
> *From:*Hampshire [mailto:hampshire-bounces@mailman.lug.org.uk] *On
> Behalf Of *Gordon Scott via Hampshire
> *Sent:* 22 April 2017 10:57
> *To:* hampshire@???
> *Subject:* Re: [Hampshire] DAT as a backup medium
>
>
> YMMV, but I personally have a PC in an another building, running
> backupPC and connected by WiFi.
> Your own private 'cloud' would also be an option.
>
> I use my garage, but a friendly neighbour who would reciprocate may
> also be an option.
>
> I tend to use Unison for cloning from one machine to another.
>
> G.
>
> On 21/04/17 15:55, Rob Malpass via Hampshire wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Is DAT still a viable backup medium if you want USB and to avoid
> optical disks?
>
> I’ve got about 8Tb to backup and for various reasons don’t fancy:
> LTO, BluRay, Cloud or HDD (i.e. NAS). I know DAT’s quite old
> (and I might even be forced to use DAT160 because of cost) but if
> it’ll do the archiving (write once read seldom) job I have in mind
> for 8Tb (even if that’s a lot of tapes) I’d be happy.
>
> Thanks
>
> Rob
>
> Image removed by sender.
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Gordon Scott
> http://www.gscott.co.uk
>
> *Rescue Tally Ho*
> http://www.yachttallyho.com
> https://www.facebook.com/yachtTallyHo
>
>
>
Then you use multiple disks, dependant on how exact your 8TB is you
could get away with a pair of 8TB disks set up in raid just to mirror
each other. If you have more than 8TB of data you will need 3 disks and
move to raid3. I think you will find that a hard disk is more resilient
than a tape (of any kind), recovery of a file is a lot quicker and in
the event of a fire, there is a good chance that you can still recover
data from a burnt disk which you won't be able to do with a molten lump
of plastic that was once your tape eve if stored is some fireproof cabinets.
Tim
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
