Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*3494\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*3494\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. 3,494 (score: 1): Author: Francois Chevallier <Francois.CHEVALLIER AT CCMX DOT FR>; Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:27:25 +0100; I have a 3494 with Magstar tapes 3590 and I would like to use a 3584 with LTO tapes . What do you think about this choice (fiability,reliability..) . Kind regards François Chevallier Parc Club du Mou; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2003-12/msg00504.html (10,811 bytes)
2. Re: 3494 (score: 1): Author: "Hart, Charles" <charles.hart AT MEDTRONIC DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:31:52 -0600; Not sure of the price Diff, but we are in the midst of 3590 > 3592's and the 3592's really rock. We are seeing 169GB an hour for our 3590 - 3592 Move data's(faster from 3592 to 3592) and our Unix Dat; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2003-12/msg00506.html (12,092 bytes)
3. Re: 3494 (score: 1): Author: Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>; Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:43:00 -0500; A good vendor reference: Redbook "The IBM TotalStorage Tape Selection and Differentiation Guide" http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246946.pdf; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2003-12/msg00507.html (10,775 bytes)
4. Re: 3494 (score: 1): Author: "Prather, Wanda" <Wanda.Prather AT JHUAPL DOT EDU>; Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:18:44 -0500; If you already have a 3494, going to a 3584 is NOT and upgrade. IBM has never claimed that the 3584/LTO solution is as robust as the 3494/3590 solution. My PERSONAL opinion is that If you have a LOW; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2003-12/msg00508.html (11,797 bytes)
5. Re: 3494 (score: 1): Author: Leonard Lauria <leonard AT UKY DOT EDU>; Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:59:27 -0500; Our experience with IBM's LTO solution has been very poor. Latest in a long string of problems was the determination that the latest drive microcode (gen 1) 36U7 (as well as several other versions) w; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2003-12/msg00510.html (11,832 bytes)
6. Re: 3494 (score: 1): Author: Joni Moyer <joni.moyer AT HIGHMARK DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:38:20 -0500; Not to get off of the subject, but what made you decide on the 3592 tape configuration? My thoughts are, what if you lose 1 tape with 1TB of data on it and it didn't make the offsite copy yet? Also,; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2003-12/msg00512.html (13,983 bytes)
7. Re: 3494 (score: 1): Author: "Hart, Charles" <charles.hart AT MEDTRONIC DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:49:07 -0600; There were a couple reasoning... 1) Too 3590E's to manage @ 40/80GB for 700+ Clients 80% Intel Windows Based (@ 180 Act/Del Retention - I know insane) 2) 3590E Drives are not capable of Fabricated lo; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2003-12/msg00513.html (14,864 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]