No tape technology is perfect. They are mechanical devices. Tapes fail (wear, stretch-and-tear), drives break. Operators drop tapes. Buildings burn down.
So no, I wouldn't put any stock in this. As Richard said, you want offsite, DR recovery tapes, don't you ? If an onsite, primary tape gets eaten by the drive, you do want to be able to recover it, don't you. Granted, the offsite don't need to be a 1-1 match. My onsite primaries are moving to mostly 3592-E05 and the offsites are the [EMAIL PROTECTED]&* LTO2 drives (that we tried to use as primaries but still fail, almost weekly - IBM admits they weren't designed for the load we put through them), since we didn't want to throw away the $$$$$$$$ money invested in 2-3583 libraries and 1000 tapes. Keith Arbogast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> 02/02/2007 11:22 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject [ADSM-L] Writing to copy pools on 3584? We are starting the process of replacing our 3494 tape library. It has ten 3590-E1A drives, about 2,500 cartridges, and supports two TSM servers. We have had preliminary talks with IBM about the 3584 ATL and 3592- E05 drive technologies. A technical rep told us, more or less, "No one is making copy pools with this new technology. They do not copy tapes from primary storage pools to a copy pool." I would never consider this with our current tape technology, so it will be a giant leap of faith to stop creating them no matter how good the new technology is. However, people of my generation who think objects that look like bombs might really be bombs are heaped with ridicule by those who know they are merely cartoon characters. Is this truly what most organizations are doing who use 3584 ATL's and 3592-E05 drives? We would be grateful to hear what others are doing, and their reasons for stopping or not stopping writing to copy pools? Thank you, Keith Arbogast Indiana University
