We did the math and found the TCO of storing data on tape is far more expensive than DASD. So we use only DASD for data storage.
We use tape only for backups. We have about 2tb of DASD and about 1,000 tapes. We consume less than 90 person minutes per day for *all* tape related activities. There are plans to reduce that time to near zero. This is part of a total 'lights out' strategy from day one (in 1999). We are up to a total of six 'operators' that spend most of their time managing telecom issues. Long ago, we realized that humans were expensive and tended to make mistakes. Keeping the human involvement minimal really pays off. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward E. Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Tape is Far More Expensive the DASD? (Was: State of the Mainframe - News Article) Hal Merritt wrote: > Hardware costs have been plummeting for a while now. So much so that it > makes a serious difference in how we manage resources. We now consider > tape to be far more expensive than DASD. YMMV. > Tape far more expensive than DASD? I find this difficult to believe. Could you elaborate? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
