"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 08/04/2006
11:34:00 AM:

> Hi Allen,
>
> I've been VERY pleased/surprised at how durable IBM LTOx drives have
> been overall.  LTO2 gave less problems than LTO1, and I think LTO3 has
> had fewer problems than LTO2.   For many sites they are an EXCELLENT
> value and totally appropriate for TSM use.
>
> On the other hand, I doubt there are many TSM installations running
> their LTO drives truly at a 100% duty cycle.
>
> In my experience, there is NO QUESTION that the 359x drives are tougher.
> I think most people are just willing to deal with occasional drive
> outages in return for lower initial cost.

I agree.  Many who go the LTO route save enough money where they can throw
in an extra drive to help them cope with more frequent drive outages.  I
experienced roughly a 20% yearly failure rate with LTO1 overall.  Mostly a
mixture of low to medium-high usage TSM environments.  So if you had 5
drives, one drive per year would be replaced.  LTO2 was better.  LTO3 is
outstanding so far.  I'm not aware of a single drive failure in any of my
customers that have LTO3 and there are a few that hammer their drives
pretty hard.

>
> Things that I have personally experienced:
>
> 1) When LTO drives fail, they don't get repaired.  The CE just comes in
> and replaces them.  They are essentially "BIC" drives - plastic parts,
> no refills.

One of the items in the LTO spec that the 3 vendor LTO consortium created
doesn't allow for field replaceable parts or piecemeal upgrades for the
drives.  The drives must be upgraded or replaced as an entire unit.  Not
quite sure why this was decided.  That means when LTO encryption capable
drives come out, it will be a whole new drive instead of a field upgrade
like that for 3592.