>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 11:37:37 -0400, Paul Zarnowski <psz1 AT CORNELL DOT EDU> 
>> said:

> This was more true with LTO-1 than with -2 or -3.  The later
> generation drives can vary their speed to try to match the data rate,
> thus avoiding some backhitching.  But Tom is correct that the motors
> in the 3592 drives are probably bigger and more powerful, and can
> thus backhitch more quickly.  (this is my guess, not fact)


If I recall correctly, the superior 3592 backhitch was related to a
special track ("servo track"?) which permitted precise high-speed
positioning.  This also aids general purpose seek behavior. The
varying speeds would certainly help.

The basic summary of the responses I've gotten offline is that LTO is
doing much better than it had initially; it seems that the current
3592s still have an edge, but not nearly so broad as was the case.

Most interestingly, I didn't see any particular discussion about any
tech _other_ than LTO or 3592, apart from one "Pulled back a bloody
stump" story about helical-scan.

This meshes neatly with a campus-level query I sent out a few weeks
back; to my surprise, LTO utterly dominated that list of tape techs,
too. Discussion of other tech lines was all in the past tense.  It
appears that the LTO alliance has kicked tush and taken names.  Rawk
On.


- Allen S. Rout