Phil,

I didn't see any responses yet so I'll comment.  I have not used LTO.  We
did upgrade to SDLT from DLT though.  For what its worth, once a SDLT is
labeled by networker it loads in the drive very quickly..ie, mounts and
label gets read.  I'd say it loads in 1/3 the time a DLT loads.  This has
helped our restore speed.

That said,  since the SLDTs have more capacity (we sometimes get 400GB on a
tape) I see a lot of the restore time is spent positioning the tape to get
to the files..ie (moving forward 3000 records)..  With all new tapes
technologies getting bigger I can see why Legato might reccommend using disk
devices...the positioning to get to files on a tape can take quite a bit of
time.

I seem to recall the AIT technology being quicker at this sort of thing??

Robert Maiello
Thomson Medical Economics


On Tue, 6 May 2003 15:40:50 -0500, McDougal, Philip H <PMcDougal AT JENNER DOT 
COM>
wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I know these drives have been beaten to death in the archives but I read
something that says the LTO2 took 2x as long as SDLT360 to restore files.
Does anyone know if this is true or have 1st hand accounts of file
restorations using LTO2 that could disprove this accusation.  As of now,
we're still on the fence between the 2 technologies.  If the restores truly
are slow on LTO2, that is something that will probably sway our choice.
>
>Thanks for your time.
>
>Phil M.
>
>--
>Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
>to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
>http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
>also view and post messages to the list.
>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=