Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Networker\]\s+LTO\-2\s+or\s+LTO\-3\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Networker\]\s+LTO\-2\s+or\s+LTO\-3\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [Networker] LTO-2 or LTO-3? (score: 1): Author: George Sinclair <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV>; Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:05:23 -0500; Hi, We're thinking to upgrade to LTO-2 or LTO-3 drives. We're currently using LTO-1 drives (Seagate) on an STK L80. Does anyone have any advice on this issue? We're mostly looking for higher capacity; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2005-12/msg00248.html (12,408 bytes)
2. Re: [Networker] LTO-2 or LTO-3? (score: 1): Author: "Krishnan, Ramamurthy" <Ramamurthy.Krishnan AT KPMG.CO DOT UK>; Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:20:30 -0500; George NetWorker supports LTO-3 only from version 7.2.1 on. In previous versions you have to define LTO-3 drives as LTO-2 device types. Our tape vendor suggested to go for LTO3. You can read LTO1 and; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2005-12/msg00249.html (14,081 bytes)
3. Re: [Networker] LTO-2 or LTO-3? (score: 1): Author: Robert Maiello <robert.maiello AT PFIZER DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:20:25 -0500; Either will be better than LTO1. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the improvment over LTO1. IBM LTO2 makes use of an "adaptive rate algorithm"...ie. it helps quite a bit on slower input stre; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2005-12/msg00250.html (13,467 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]