Chris's Wiki :: blog/tech/TapeCosts Commentshttps://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/tech/TapeCosts?atomcommentsDWiki2009-05-08T12:37:24ZRecent comments in Chris's Wiki :: blog/tech/TapeCosts.From 68.36.54.173 on /blog/tech/TapeCoststag:CSpace:blog/tech/TapeCosts:c75f27f5baf31c6b636bbf44b125ce4f278f7d20From 68.36.54.173<div class="wikitext"><p>You're right on. Storage and bandwidth of any kind are inexorably tied together. Data does not seem to want to be many places at once, and getting it there is not going to cease to be a problem for us anytime soon. </p>
<p>I'm afraid that the only good solution is parallelization of the 'bandwidth', or tape drives, in this case. In any event, once you grow to a certain size, it's the only way you can continue to do backups. At 4 times the size you mentioned, you're out of free hours in the day. If you've got more data (or if you like to switch tapes), you've only got one option. </p>
<p>Tape density, drive density, and bandwidth are all pulling in different directions, but the real winner is always volume of data. The first three answer to that one, leaving us to figure out new and creative ways to make sure that there's never data loss without recovery. It's enough to keep you up at night sometimes. </p>
<p>Matt Simmons<br>
<a href="http://standalone-sysadmin.blogspot.com">http://standalone-sysadmin.blogspot.com</a></p>
</div>2009-05-08T12:37:24Z