kaled
msg:3861084 | 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. Kaled.
|
edzillion
msg:3861093 | 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.
|
kaled
msg:3861182 | 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! Kaled.
|
LifeinAsia
msg:3861196 | 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?
|
kaled
msg:3861260 | 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. Kaled.
|
eeek
msg:3878231 | 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?
|
|
