RE: Virtual Tape vs Savf -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: RE: Virtual Tape vs Savf
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:41:19 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

I question that. LTO3 & 4 tape drives, given a fair CPU are pretty fast.
Side by Side comm over a local lan can be pretty fast too.

Comm:
- save to virtual
- transfer image catalog to new machine (what are your ftp speeds?)
- restore from image catalog
Tape:
- save to tape
- move tape cartridge(s) via sneakernet
- Restore from tape

I know that transferring image catalog entries that contain ptf groups via
ftp from one lpar to another in the same subnet (same room) can take
significantly more time than it takes me to move a tape cartridge from one
drive to another.

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.