Members the stranger Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I would assume that something would come along that could store things on a physical medium in a linear manner that wouldn't be fraught with the same mechanical issues with tape or even hard drives/etc. But upon catching that assertion that Google is using tape for backups, I'm guessing it isn't here yet. I would have assumed that they were using some form of "infinite-redundancy" (my term ). I was shocked to read they were using tape backups. And upon further investigation, it appears they aren't the only big entity doing this. What's the latest developments in this area? Should I buy Ampex stock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I don't know that the reason Google et al keep using tape is because nothing better has come along, so much as the sheer volume of data they have and how expensive it would be to replace their tape backups with something else. Most of us with not so much data to back up prefer external hard drives. I have seen backup tapes go bad quite often, as well as CDs and DVDs, but I don't think I've ever seen a hard drive register as unreadable after being merely stored for years. And most hard drives are at least partially, if not fully, recoverable even if they have a mechanical failure. However, it would be really impractical for Google to back up everything on external hard drives. So, although I love analog tape for music obviously, and think it's good for archival storage of music too, I don't think tape is really so great for data backup, if you can afford hard drives (which are cheap these days). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I chuckled a bit when I saw this new thread, knowing where it had come from. My old drum machine, an Oberheim DMX, backed up to cassette. And SAW+, a DAW, backed up to DAT. But yes, as far as us mere mortals are concerned, it'd be cheaper just to buy external hard drives or three and just back up to that. If it's truly important, keep it on a couple of hard drives or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 Long ago (1990, to be precise, while in college), I worked as a sysadmin for a library district. We ran a GEAC 8000 mainframe that held the card catalog, checkout system and all that happy crap. Lots of data, obviously. Anyway, one of my main duties was to run tape backups first thing in the morning when I arrived. And really, for being what's now considered an ancient technology, I can't imagine a more simple method of backing up that data. Thread the tape, enter one line code command, and boom. Backed up. Tape goes on the shelf, and no worrying about anything else. Doing that with external drives and such would be a much larger pain in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted August 2, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 But Google isn't mere mortals. So, I'm really curious why super power type entities are still choosing tape as an archival medium. And considering how fickle tape can be, I'm just shocked that Google is using it. So, I would think that would see a benefit in switching to something else. You mentioned the cost of switching, but how much are they spending on all that tape...and the facilities to store it...etc?! Like holy space-mountain Batman, that's a lot of tape! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I'd love to know how much tape that is, agreed. I think they just wanted multiple ways of backing up stuff, including HD, including tape. That'd be my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted August 2, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 Long ago (1990, to be precise, while in college), I worked as a sysadmin for a library district. We ran a GEAC 8000 mainframe that held the card catalog, checkout system and all that happy crap. Lots of data, obviously. Anyway, one of my main duties was to run tape backups first thing in the morning when I arrived. And really, for being what's now considered an ancient technology, I can't imagine a more simple method of backing up that data. Thread the tape, enter one line code command, and boom. Backed up. Tape goes on the shelf, and no worrying about anything else. Doing that with external drives and such would be a much larger pain in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted August 2, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I think they just wanted multiple ways of backing up stuff, including HD, including tape. That'd be my guess. Sounds reasonable. And money probably really isn't an issue with Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul McCartney Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 So, I'm really curious why super power type entities are still choosing tape as an archival medium. Possibly because the archivar told them so, so he can keep his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul McCartney Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 UBS bank headquarter stores worldwide accounting on hard drives, total 36'000 Petabyte last time I asked the archivar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 Anyway, one of my main duties was to run tape backups first thing in the morning when I arrived. And really, for being what's now considered an ancient technology, I can't imagine a more simple method of backing up that data. Thread the tape, enter one line code command, and boom. Backed up. Tape goes on the shelf, and no worrying about anything else. Doing that with external drives and such would be a much larger pain in the ass. I don't see how it would, really - plug in the drive, enter a command or click a button, and boom. Backed up. Drive goes on the shelf. Probably about the same amount of time. Stranger, yeah, tape costs would be high, but I don't think as high as replacing their whole system with external drives. One day, the cost of drives will be SO low that it will make sense for them to switch, financially. But we're not quite there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I think they just wanted multiple ways of backing up stuff, including HD, including tape. That'd be my guess. Yeah - I'm sure they have some of their stuff backed up to disk. It's probably in a very slow transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted August 2, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I don't see how it would, really - plug in the drive, enter a command or click a button, and boom. Backed up. Drive goes on the shelf. Probably about the same amount of time. Stranger, yeah, tape costs would be high, but I don't think as high as replacing their whole system with external drives. One day, the cost of drives will be SO low that it will make sense for them to switch, financially. But we're not quite there yet. So, would I be correct to picture a room with those tall machines with the big reels like you see in some old NASA photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I don't see how it would, really - plug in the drive, enter a command or click a button, and boom. Backed up. Drive goes on the shelf. Probably about the same amount of time. You're probably right. My experience with HD-based backup tends to run into problems that involve weird things like file name compatibility issues that cause backups to hang, but that's dealing with client data that comes in from all directions, with no degree of consistency. In other words, if your {censored} is set up right to start with, there shouldn't be an issue. Tape, on the other hand, just doesn't care. It's dumb enough to be easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted August 2, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 Yeah - I'm sure they have some of their stuff backed up to disk. It's probably in a very slow transition. I was guessing it's redundant. Like they are archiving to both. I was thinking that there still isn't a complete consensus on the long term stability of hd/etc and so they we're still doing tape because tape has shown to be effective at lasting a long time under good storage conditions. Like Paul mentioned, "the archiver told them to". I have no idea, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted August 2, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 You're probably right. My experience with HD-based backup tends to run into problems that involve weird things like file name compatibility issues that cause backups to hang, but that's dealing with client data that comes in from all directions, with no degree of consistency. In other words, if your {censored} is set up right to start with, there shouldn't be an issue. Tape, on the other hand, just doesn't care. It's dumb enough to be easy. Every time I've ever been doing a complete backup, I've run into that file name thing/etc. Waking up and being annoyed because that backup I started stopped at 10% and threw up a dialog box that was still waiting for a reply. So does this mean that the tape copy is actually more of an exact copy than the HD one?! Man, this is like more irony than I can handle for one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 You're probably right. My experience with HD-based backup tends to run into problems that involve weird things like file name compatibility issues that cause backups to hang, but that's dealing with client data that comes in from all directions, with no degree of consistency. In other words, if your {censored} is set up right to start with, there shouldn't be an issue. Exactly. And yeah, there is no shortage of {censored}ed up backup software too. To the extent that HD backups have been unreliable for me, it's always because of the software, most of which tries to compress the files into some proprietary volume type or some such crap. So you can't get to the individual files you need without restoring the whole thing, which may or may not happen if you have incompatible software or there are a few bad sectors on the disk from shipping or whatnot. It's really stupid. These days, I immediately reformat any new external drives (blowing away all the lame-o software they always include installed on the drive) and use Cobian Backup, an open source backup scheduler that allows you to configure it any way you want. I have it just do straight file copies of my critical folders, and it happens every night automatically, without my having to do jack squat. If my main hard drive or computer crashed tomorrow, I could just plug the external drive into any other computer's USB port and be back to work. I have the same software (mostly) installed on my other computers, or else I have the original disks handy, and the install files for any downloaded software or drivers are backed up along with my data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted August 2, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 [good tip from Lee] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 So does this mean that the tape copy is actually more of an exact copy than the HD one?! Man, this is like more irony than I can handle for one day. Not really (see my above post). It just means people have inconsistent and crappy backup strategies. Tape doesn't give you too many options. If you have a decent backup strategy for your hard drive, you won't run into the kind of idiocy Jeff encounters (and I've had the same thing happen). It's especially fun when you run into file discrepancies between PCs and Macs. But again, that's not a problem of tape vs. HD, it's a problem of bad software, inconsistent working environments and human error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted August 2, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 Yeah, I saw your post after I posted my last post in response to the previous post addressing the posts stemming from the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul McCartney Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 a 160 GB backup tape costs about $12, a 2000 GB hard drive cost about $99, you save about $50 per 2000 GB backup with hard drives, not even talking about the time you waste using DSS tapes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 So, would I be correct to picture a room with those tall machines with the big reels like you see in some old NASA photo? That' be great, but probably not anymore. When I was a little kid, I used to go into my Dad's work, where he did data processing. When you're only a few years old, those tape drives look like skyscrapers. I remember the room would be really cold, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I remember the room would be really cold, too. {censored}ing freezing. My mainframe sysadmin gig started at 5am. The last thing you wanted to do at that time was to walk into that icebox. Of course, it made you want to get out quicker, so you were quite efficient at getting those backups rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I chuckled a bit when I saw this new thread, knowing where it had come from.My old drum machine, an Oberheim DMX, backed up to cassette. And SAW+, a DAW, backed up to DAT.But yes, as far as us mere mortals are concerned, it'd be cheaper just to buy external hard drives or three and just back up to that. If it's truly important, keep it on a couple of hard drives or more.Back in the day, I had a number of tape data backups go bad. The worst of course were schemes that backed up digital data to analog tape -- but I had a tape backup from a respected maker back in the early/mid 90s and it did me serious dirt a few times. Backup is only good when it works. When I got my first CD in 1996 -- even though the first blanks I bought were $18 a disk and write once, I never looked back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bookumdano2 Posted August 2, 2011 Members Share Posted August 2, 2011 I don't know what the pro standard is for tape backup but I still have several computers with travan drives and a bazillion travan tapes in a box somewhere. Those were the most unreliable things I've ever encountered. And slow. And noisy. I thought tape backup was long gone. Like since those old days when Stacker was around. Remember that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.