... >The way I see it if you only have fast streaming performance, then sure your >migrations and backups will be fast, but reclamation and file system recovery >with the active versions of data spread across a tape will have poor >performance. Is this accurate?
Basically true; but anything that delays an operation (incremental backups, migration process deferring to other system tasks, etc.) will make for tape idle time and loss of streaming. >Are there any reports that compare the various tape drives in 'real world' >situations? See the list archives, Tivoli web site whitepapers, Gartner analyses, etc. I index some of the comparisons in http://people.bu.edu/rbs/ADSM.QuickFacts : 3590 vs. 9840 tape drives: (see follow-on paper just below this one) http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/tape/3590/prod_data/3590perform.pdf (G522-2508) 3590 vs. 9840, 3580 Ultrium, DLT 8000 tape drives: http://www.tivoli.com/news/press/analyst/tsm.pdf LTO Ultrium vs. Super-DLT: http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/tape/lto/prod_data/ltovsdlt.html In general, tape technologies that operate without servo tracking suffer in performance. >And finally if there are no reports of 'real world' situations comparing the >various tape drives... See them prior postings in ADSM-L. Lots of real experience and tears there. Richard Sims, BU
