ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] LTO for long term archiving

2009-05-05 16:43:12
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] LTO for long term archiving
From: Kelly Lipp <lipp AT STORSERVER DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:42:22 -0600
I like the implication, but I'm pretty sure somebody actually thought being 
able to read the information would have been a good idea.

Kelly Lipp
CTO
STORServer, Inc.
485-B Elkton Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
719-266-8777 x7105
www.storserver.com


-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Remco Post
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:39 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] LTO for long term archiving

I do agree, having the tapedrives around _could_ be important. I know
of at least one environment that was able to produce the media that
stores the data, but no drives. But then again, they only had to
retain the data, not the infra to access it.

On May 5, 2009, at 22:35 , Kelly Lipp wrote:

> To me the problem is having the drives around and more importantly,
> the interfaces to the drives.  I think that probably the best bet is
> to plan on "archiving" a TSM server with a drive along with the
> media periodically.  Snap off the last database backup, restore it
> on the to be archived server (a good test in itself), and store the
> whole kit together.  If one needs to retrieve an archive, fire up
> the archived server, query the database to determine what tape is
> required, get it, retrieve the data and put the whole mess away.
>
> The other way to do this would be to migrate the archived data to
> new tape media as you march through time.  I like this approach as
> that will have the double advantage of refreshing and verifying the
> data on those tapes.  One could shelve the media in the archive
> pools and do this on a very controller basis when the media
> changes.  Lots of data movement potentially, but it would become a
> nicely verified process that your auditors could look at to help
> ensure compliance.  It's one thing to say we're doing and quite
> another to show we're doing it.  Having the archive data more
> readily retrievable has obvious benefits as well.
>
> Kelly Lipp
> CTO
> STORServer, Inc.
> 485-B Elkton Drive
> Colorado Springs, CO 80907
> 719-266-8777 x7105
> www.storserver.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> Behalf Of Huebschman, George J.
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:25 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] LTO for long term archiving
>
> Does anyone have 25 year old tape media or tape drives around?
> Will you stil be able to use LTOx media in 25 years?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> Behalf Of
> Thomas Denier
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 4:11 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] LTO for long term archiving
>
> I work for a large hospital. I have been asked to investigate possible
> configurations for archiving something between a few hundred terabytes
> and a petabyte of data for 25 years. This would be clinical records
> that
> we need to keep in case of a malpractice suit. The retention period is
> 25 years because there are two ways we can get sued for alleged
> malpractice involving a pediatric patient. The parents or guardians
> have
> a seven year window of opportunity to file suit, starting at the
> time of
> the alleged malpractice. The patient has a seven year window of
> opportunity, starting at his or her 18th birthday. In principle, the
> retention period should vary depending on patient age, but nobody I
> have
> talked to so far thinks it is practical to sort records in this way;
> they want a uniform retention period that covers the worst case
> scenario
> (a patient allegedly harmed as a newborn suing just before the end of
> his or her seven year window).
>
> As far as I can tell, the most expensive part of such a
> configuration is
> the media, and LTO media will cost about a third as much as the most
> economical MagStar media (extended length 3592 volumes read and
> written
> with TS1130 drives). With the sort of workload described above I don't
> expect any difficulty staying within the recommended limit on the
> number
> of times an LTO volume passes over the tape heads. Are there any other
> reasons to be nervous about using LTO for long term archives?
>
> IMPORTANT:  E-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Legg
> Mason therefore recommends that you do not send any confidential or
> sensitive information to us via electronic mail, including social
> security numbers, account numbers, or personal identification
> numbers. Delivery, and or timely delivery of Internet mail is not
> guaranteed. Legg Mason therefore recommends that you do not send
> time sensitive
> or action-oriented messages to us via electronic mail.
>
> This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain
> privileged or confidential information. Unless you are the intended
> recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone any
> information contained in this message. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify the author by replying to this
> message and then kindly delete the message. Thank you.

--
Met vriendelijke groeten,

Remco Post
r.post AT plcs DOT nl
+31 6 248 21 622