Re: 1.5TB drives due in August!

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Mike Dee, Jul 13, 2008.

  1. Mike Dee

    Mike Dee Guest

    Freesias <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:07:02 +1200, Brian Mathews wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:50:33 +1200, thingy <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/10/seagate_1point5tb_hdd/
    >>>
    >>>As the articla says 1Tb might drop as a result....goodie...

    >>
    >> And how do you back them up..??

    >
    > Using a whole bunch of 50G DVDs?
    >
    > Using another 1T disc?
    >
    > Using a Raid array?
    >
    > Using an exact mirror offsite?
    >
    > Using Incremental backups?
    >
    > Using 300G tape drives? with several cartridges?


    Or wait until 2010 and back 'em up onto Seagates new 37.5 Tb drives ;-)

    "Seagate to offer 300 TB hard drive by 2010" (Thats Terabits not
    terabytes, and translates to approx. 37.5 terabytes of storage on one
    hard drive).
    <http://www.itwire.com/content/view/8350/52/>

    And then you'll be able to back up the 37.5 Tb drives onto... oh wait a
    minute ;-)

    --
    dee

    "Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and
    wrote their own device drivers?" <http://tinyurl.com/bgfdj>
    Mike Dee, Jul 13, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Dee

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Mike Dee" typed:
    > Freesias <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:07:02 +1200, Brian Mathews wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:50:33 +1200, thingy <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/10/seagate_1point5tb_hdd/
    >>>>
    >>>> As the articla says 1Tb might drop as a result....goodie...
    >>>
    >>> And how do you back them up..??

    >>
    >> Using a whole bunch of 50G DVDs?
    >>
    >> Using another 1T disc?
    >>
    >> Using a Raid array?
    >>
    >> Using an exact mirror offsite?
    >>
    >> Using Incremental backups?
    >>
    >> Using 300G tape drives? with several cartridges?

    >
    > Or wait until 2010 and back 'em up onto Seagates new 37.5 Tb drives
    > ;-)
    >
    > "Seagate to offer 300 TB hard drive by 2010" (Thats Terabits not
    > terabytes, and translates to approx. 37.5 terabytes of storage on one
    > hard drive).
    > <http://www.itwire.com/content/view/8350/52/>
    >
    > And then you'll be able to back up the 37.5 Tb drives onto... oh wait
    > a minute ;-)


    Interesting. I see this part:

    "This time, Seagate will use a technology called heat-assisted magnetic
    recording (HAMR). These isn't much detail on exactly how this works...."

    I remember reading a while back (and I note that the article is 18 months
    old) that this technology will be the future of storage. I don't understand
    the "not much detail" comment as I'm lead to believe that it's simply the
    same as the old IBM SCSI 128MB Magneto-Optical removable disk drive that I
    have on my shelf only 5+ generations ahead, using perp tech and
    short-wavelength lasers. It's a technology that was left on the shelf as
    being too expensive many years ago.

    As I understand it the area where data is to be written has to be heated
    with a laser before the magnetic flux can be re-arranged, making for
    ultra-reliability as well as pin-point accuracy using the new laser tech.
    That being the secret, the laser can make the area that can be written way
    smaller than simple physical heads are able to now. The heads will still be
    (nearly) as big as they are now but won't write to any area that isn't
    heated by the laser, with that area being much smaller than the heads. I'm
    not sure how reading the data will be achieved though as the heads will pick
    up about 10 tracks. maybe with an alogrithm that filters out all but the
    most powerful track, being the one in the centre of the heads???

    Anyway, I find it intriguing. I've always liked this old magneto-optical
    drive, it still works just fine despite being manufactured in 1991. Hmmm,
    with 'generations' in computer tech being about 18 months I guess we're
    talking 12 generations ahead, not the five I mentioned above.

    <hooks it up to testbed machine for the first time in 3 years>

    LOL, yeah it still works fine. My only cartridge/disk is full of mp3s and
    they play fine. Hmm, must try deleting and re-writing...

    Oh dear, I think maybe I shouldn't have tried copying a file to it across
    the network. Either that of XP just didn't like it. It choked on the write
    and now isn't recognising the disk. :-(

    Oh well, look on the bright side, I've reclaimed some shelf-space. :)

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.

    DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
    offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
    If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
    me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
    ~misfit~, Jul 13, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike Dee

    Enkidu Guest

    Mike Dee wrote:
    > Freesias <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:07:02 +1200, Brian Mathews wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:50:33 +1200, thingy
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/10/seagate_1point5tb_hdd/
    >>>>
    >>>> As the articla says 1Tb might drop as a result....goodie...
    >>> And how do you back them up..??

    >> Using a whole bunch of 50G DVDs?
    >>
    >> Using another 1T disc?
    >>
    >> Using a Raid array?
    >>
    >> Using an exact mirror offsite?
    >>
    >> Using Incremental backups?
    >>
    >> Using 300G tape drives? with several cartridges?

    >
    > Or wait until 2010 and back 'em up onto Seagates new 37.5 Tb drives
    > ;-)
    >
    > "Seagate to offer 300 TB hard drive by 2010" (Thats Terabits not
    > terabytes, and translates to approx. 37.5 terabytes of storage on one
    > hard drive). <http://www.itwire.com/content/view/8350/52/>
    >
    > And then you'll be able to back up the 37.5 Tb drives onto... oh wait
    > a minute ;-)
    >

    Disk to disk is the way to go. You can do it byte by byte or you can add
    compression or (if there is any such in the pipeline), you could back it
    up to special HDD technology arrays, similar to SANs.

    What you don't do is back it up to tape.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - someone on a newsgroup, somewhere.
    Enkidu, Jul 13, 2008
    #3
  4. Mike Dee

    EMB Guest

    Freesias wrote:
    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:01:57 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> What you don't do is back it up to tape.

    >
    > Funny that, but I know at least one enterprise that backs up all servers
    > to tape.


    I know (and contract to) several, at least 2 of which have recently
    installed new tape libraries.
    EMB, Jul 13, 2008
    #4
  5. Mike Dee

    Enkidu Guest

    Freesias wrote:
    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:01:57 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> What you don't do is back it up to tape.

    >
    > Funny that, but I know at least one enterprise that backs up all servers
    > to tape.
    >

    Not for much longer. Even at the faster possible tape speed it is
    getting near impossible to back up the dozens of TB that organisations
    have these days.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - someone on a newsgroup, somewhere.
    Enkidu, Jul 13, 2008
    #5
  6. Mike Dee

    Enkidu Guest

    EMB wrote:
    > Freesias wrote:
    >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:01:57 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>
    >>> What you don't do is back it up to tape.

    >>
    >> Funny that, but I know at least one enterprise that backs up all
    >> servers to tape.

    >
    > I know (and contract to) several, at least 2 of which have recently
    > installed new tape libraries.
    >

    I still reckon that tape is a dying technology. The amount of disk is
    rocketing, the capacity of tapes is not increasing significantly. What
    is more important is that the *time* to backup data is increasing
    significantly. Our backups start on Friday and are never finished by
    Monday. Increased backup times also increase the risk of something going
    wrong during the backup, meaning that you end up with a basket of tapes
    with nothing useful on them and the good backup more than a week old.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - someone on a newsgroup, somewhere.
    Enkidu, Jul 13, 2008
    #6
  7. Mike Dee

    Enkidu Guest

    Freesias wrote:
    > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:21:19 +1200, EMB wrote:
    >
    >> Freesias wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:01:57 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> What you don't do is back it up to tape.
    >>> Funny that, but I know at least one enterprise that backs up all
    >>> servers to tape.

    >> I know (and contract to) several, at least 2 of which have recently
    >> installed new tape libraries.

    >
    > Heh heh.
    >
    > I'm also aware of incidents to do with backups where the amount of
    > data to be backed-up was so large that the tape started overwriting
    > the beginning of the backup that it had only written a short while
    > earlier.
    >

    I know of no system that would do that. It would require the tape to be
    reinserted manually with no verification of the tape. No commercial
    system that I know of would allow that.
    >
    > I suspect this is why Cliff is wary about using tape backups (that
    > and possible read errors). :eek:)
    >

    No, Lennier. The major problem is the backup windows stretching out to a
    significant portion of the week. Even if you have multiple tape
    libraries, like we do, backup windows are approaching half a week. I've
    heard of one backup taking 12 days (not one of ours, fortunately).

    I'm NOT wary about tape backups. I've used them for *years*. They work
    fine up to a point, and we are reaching that point.

    Cheers,

    Cliff


    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - someone on a newsgroup, somewhere.
    Enkidu, Jul 13, 2008
    #7
  8. Mike Dee

    Richard Guest

    Enkidu wrote:

    >>
    >> I know (and contract to) several, at least 2 of which have recently
    >> installed new tape libraries.
    > >

    > I still reckon that tape is a dying technology. The amount of disk is
    > rocketing, the capacity of tapes is not increasing significantly. What
    > is more important is that the *time* to backup data is increasing
    > significantly. Our backups start on Friday and are never finished by
    > Monday. Increased backup times also increase the risk of something going
    > wrong during the backup, meaning that you end up with a basket of tapes
    > with nothing useful on them and the good backup more than a week old.


    I dont get why tapes are not benifiting from all the advances in hdd
    technology, they are both magnetic storage with heads - is just one is
    rotational and one is linear.
    Richard, Jul 14, 2008
    #8
  9. Mike Dee

    Enkidu Guest

    Freesias wrote:
    > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:34:05 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> I still reckon that tape is a dying technology. The amount of disk is
    >> rocketing, the capacity of tapes is not increasing significantly. What
    >> is more important is that the *time* to backup data is increasing
    >> significantly. Our backups start on Friday and are never finished by
    >> Monday.

    >
    > Sounds like either:
    >
    > 1/ Network issue. Is the backup network a gigabit WAN with Gigabit NICs?
    >
    > 2/ Too much data is stored on the server. How much of the data on the
    > server has been accessed in the last 6 months?
    >
    > 3/ Backups are being undertaken at the same time that the machine is
    > being used for production related activities such as running reports or
    > other stuff that is undertaken at night. Backups should be undertaken
    > when the server is not required for production related tasks.
    >
    > 4/ Backups are not being done in an incremental manner. You only
    > mentioned weekends for backups. Are daily incremental backups being done
    > with full backups being done once a week?
    >
    > 5/ the tape drive is old and needs to be updated to a newer/faster one.
    >

    STFU Lennier. You don't know what you are talking about.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - someone on a newsgroup, somewhere.
    Enkidu, Jul 15, 2008
    #9
  10. Mike Dee

    Enkidu Guest

    Freesias wrote:
    > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:29:24 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> STFU Lennier. You don't know what you are talking about.

    >
    > Tell me.
    >
    > Do you consider that using two or three HDDs in a RAID aray will protect
    > you against data loss and/or server down time in the event of HDD failure?
    >
    > If you answer "no", then why do you use RAID arrays at all?
    >
    > If you answer "yes" then you agree with me.
    >

    STFU Lennier. You don't know what you are talking about.

    I apologise for repeating myself, but first time didn't get through.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - someone on a newsgroup, somewhere.
    Enkidu, Jul 15, 2008
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Enkidu

    Re: 1.5TB drives due in August!

    Enkidu, Jul 11, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,063
    Enkidu
    Jul 19, 2008
  2. Enkidu

    Re: 1.5TB drives due in August!

    Enkidu, Jul 11, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    351
    Enkidu
    Jul 13, 2008
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Re: 1.5TB drives due in August!

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 14, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    328
    Enkidu
    Jul 17, 2008
  4. ~misfit~

    Re: 1.5tb drives!

    ~misfit~, Oct 3, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    392
    Stephen Worthington
    Oct 10, 2008
  5. Chris Wilkinson

    Re: 1.5tb drives!

    Chris Wilkinson, Oct 3, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    839
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Oct 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page