Re: SDLT-4 compareded to LTO-3

--On March 2, 2007 10:31:33 AM +0000 Anthony Worrall<anthony.worrall AT reading.ac DOT uk> wrote:

Hi

This is not strictly an amanda question but I thought I would see if any
one has any views on SDLT-4 compared to LTO-3.

We are currently looking at replacing our tape devices an are looking at
SDLT-4 which seems to be about the same price as LTO-3 but offer twice
the capacity. Has anyone got any experience of these drives. I am told
by our supplier that they are selling many more LTO-3 than SDLT-4. Is it
just that SDLT-4 is newer is there some reason?

SDLT-4 (DLT-S4) may cost less $/gb but it still costs more per tape. Sounless you're actually using that much tape it may noe be as attractive asit seems. Several other issues with DLT-S4 are the relatively slow ratedspeed of 60MB/sec (LTO3 is rated at 80, and I routinely see 60 inproduction, I'd see more if I had faster hosts). Also I don't know, butlast I checked DLT still had to be streamed at the rate they were at.

Though the biggest reasons LTO is outselling DLT/SDLT is SDLT is viewed asbeing end of line first, and secondly, Quantum is the ONLY supplier of DLTdrives. LTO is available from HP/Compaq, IBM, and, yes, Quantum. LTO-3also has atleast one advantage for (capable) libraries, each cartridge hasa contactless (read... RFID like) memory that can report the tapes lastknown condition, as well as user data. in theory atleast an LTO drive orlibrary has only to read this tag to decide whether-or-not it can read thetape, and if it even should. DLT and SDLT have the problem that if youload an older generation cartridge than your drive supports you may destroythe heads.

LTO has a slightly smaller cartridge too. Though for the 'desktop' userthis isn't a big deal, but if you've got a tape library, it makes a prettybig difference in the number of tapes you can put in your library.


Cheers

Anthony Worrall




--
"Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its possessors
into trouble of all kinds."
-- Samuel Butler