| 4:49 pm on Mar 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps this seems a daft question, but why use a tape backup?
A hard disk will probably do the job faster, more reliably and cheaper.
| 5:02 pm on Mar 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Not daft at all, I thought.
I did mention this but there was a lot of talk about how it had to be ruggedized and the idea was passed over.
I think part of the reason being that the IT contractors have a penchant for expensive hardware.
| 6:58 pm on Mar 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Rugged - how about a flash drive. There must be something around at about £1.00 per GB these days. That should also satisfy the IT geeks!
| 7:15 pm on Mar 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
You'd need quite a few flash drives for 150G of data to backup! Besides, flash drives have a limited number of read/writes before failure- not the best choice for backing up critical data!
The price definitely seems excessive. Is there a major problem with using smaller capacity and more tapes?
| 9:08 pm on Mar 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I just checked...
I found a 250GB solid-state sata drive for £700 on Amazon. Oddly that's more than twice the cost per GB that you should pay for a USB pen drive - I definitely don't understand that!
As for ruggedness/reliability, flash beats tape hands down - there just is no comparison. Try placing a tape in washing machine, exposing it to direct sunlight for a few hours, or exposing to strong magnetic fields or repeated vibration.
The issue of limited writes makes flash ideal for backup. Flash is are also far less limited than tape.
| 4:28 am on Mar 25, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Then swap the tapes at the end of each week and keep one off site. |
So if a couple weeks go by before you notice something is missing, you're screwed?