We use the Scalar i2000 at two different locations configured with
LTO-II drives. While I cannot compare it to the SL8500. The library has
been reliable and when presented with data streams equal to the spec'd
tape drive throughput  it has had little or no overhead when writing to
tape. Many of the components are hot swappable and redundant, allowing
the library to remain online  even when changing  components. The drive
sleds provide and easy means to upgrade to later generations of LTO or
to change tape technology completely (tape slots can be reconfigured. We
very seldom use the touch screen, but do make extensive use of the web
interface for amongst other things its reporting capabilities. The
Scalar i2000 was a good fit for our locations as the footprint is the
same as a standard server rack.  
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:23:26 -0500 (EST)
> From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz AT lucidpixels DOT com>
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Speaking of tape libraries.. SL8500 vs. SCI2K
>       (SCALAR I2000)?
> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901280621050.1662 AT p34.internal DOT lan>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Hi all,
>
> Does anyone on this list use a SCI2K (SCALAR I2000) (LTO/3000 slot 
> library)?
>
> How does this compare in terms of redundancy and performance to an SL8500?
>
> Which would you recommend?
>
> Justin.
>   

_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu