Remember, LTO was created by a consortium of vendors that wanted to stop paying royalties on proprietary open tape solutions (Exabyte, SDLT). It was a replacement for that solution not 3590.
-----Original Message----- From: NEUMEYER, CHRIS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 8:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LTO drive VS 3590E1A IBM marketing has always done a great job at preventing "side-by-side" comparisons on their specifications sheets. They often list different performance specifications. As far as I can tell, the IBM 3580 Ultrium drive holds an impressive 100GB native (2:1 compression) whereas the IBM 3590-E1A can only hold 40GB native with the extended cartridges (3:1 compression). IBM also publishes a sustained data transfer rate of 15MB/second on the Ultrium, making it faster than the 3590-E1A's "maximum drive data rate" of 14MB/second. Having said that... my IBM storage representative says that the 3494 library is a more industrial tape library intended for larger enterprise environments than the Ultrium 3584 tape library. IBM offers and supports extended utilities for the 3494, such as StorWatch Expert software. Also, the 3494 library and 3590-E1A tape drives can be FC-AL attached. Currently, the Ultrium 3580s can not. But, I must admit that for the GB/sq. foot the LTO 3584 is very nice. I've worked with both libraries and they are both among the top in the industry. Here are the specifications links... http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/tape/3494/prod_data/g225-6601.html http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/tape/3584/prod_data/g225-6853.html Hope that helps! Regards, Chris Neumeyer -----Original Message----- From: Zosimo Noriega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 4:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: LTO drive VS 3590E1A Hello to you... Everybody saying that LTO Ultrium drive is a latest drive technology that why we quoting to this to replace our existing tape library, can you please provide me info regarding the LTO vs 3590 comparisons in terms of accessibility, availability, performance, etc. regards, Zosi Noriega
