Data Transfer:
Writing from LTO to LTO, LTO to 3590, 3590 to 3590 is all 12-13 megs/sec,
DISK to LTO, DISK to 3590 (client compression)

Measurements are taken on the Brocade switch (portperfshow) and all drives
are fiber.

Price:
3 LTO for 1 3590.
Tape prices are similar per Gig.
Robot cost lower for LTO, frame costs if figured per Terabyte much lower for
LTO.
Floor space and power costs per Terabyte much lower for LTO.
LTO drives are replaced  and 3590 are fixed.  LTO costs lower anyway.
LTO tape drives sold by many vendors.  Competition is good.

Capacity: client compression (with drive, LTO 2:1 and 3590 3:1)
LTO 1 storage cabinet 40 Terabytes (400 tapes *100 Gigs each)
3590 library 6 frames 40 Terabytes approximately.

Tapes are smaller and have more capacity for LTO

Performance:
LTO library robot, much faster, 2-3 times
IBM says LTO backhitches more and slower recovery than 3590 (I have not
seen)


Jeff Bach
Home Office Open Systems Engineering
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

WAL-MART CONFIDENTIAL


        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Bill Mansfield [SMTP:WMansfield AT SOLUTIONTECHNOLOGY DOT COM]
        Sent:   Sunday, October 21, 2001 12:56 PM
        To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
        Subject:        Re: 3590E1A vs IBM LTO

        Another issue to be aware of is "backhitch time".  When your data
stream is
        too slow, the drive has to stop, back up a bit, and continue
writing.
        Magstar drives excel at this, which is why they are touted for HSM
and VTS
        on the mainframe.  LTO drives are much poorer at this.  Most
applications
        for LTO are "write mostly", like straight backup.

        Also, Magstar drives are more versatile.  They can be upgraded from
one
        tape density to another (B to E), you can change their interface
from SCSI
        to FC, etc.  Then can also be used in mixed mainframe/open
environments.
        LTO drives are generally locked into their original configuration
(remains
        to be seen what happens when next generation density comes out).

        There is a performance paper out there somewhere on Magstar vs. LTO
        performance.

        _____________________________
        William Mansfield
        Senior Consultant
        Solution Technology, Inc
        630 357 7744 x338



                            Zosimo
                            Noriega              To:
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
                            <znoriega@ADN        cc:
                            OC.COM>              Subject:     3590E1A vs IBM
LTO
                            Sent by:
                            "ADSM: Dist
                            Stor Manager"
                            <ADSM-L AT VM DOT MA
                            RIST.EDU>


                            10/21/2001
                            04:36 AM
                            Please
                            respond to
                            "ADSM: Dist
                            Stor Manager"






        We are planning to upgrade ADSM to TSM 4.1 and then currently we are
using
        3494 library with 4 3590B1A drives.
        Then, we are looking to upgrade or replace the drives into 3590E1A
or IBM
        LTO.  Anybody can share from the experience using these drives.  and
which
        is the best in terms of performance, availability, cost, data
transfer
        rate,
        capacity, etc.....  thanks a lot in advance.

        reagrds,

        Zosi Noriega
        A D N O C
        IST-ITD DMSS
        Tel -  6024987


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed.  If you have received this email
in error destroy it immediately.
**********************************************************************