Tape vs disk cost

[jack-rp9/bkPP+cDYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org (Jack-rp9/bkPP+cDYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org)]

Long term stability of tapes is also an issue.   LTO's have a timing
track pre-recorded, so it
should help.   Sofar I haven't found any really good archive media
(like rock-stable 50 year life)
that has any reasonable access time and cost per unit, including r/w device.

The current best I have found for large amounts of data is tape (in
some reasonably current form),
or 'archival DVD's.  But just about every media needs to be read and
checked regularly (every year
or so on tapes, 3 to 5 years on DVD's.  And eventually moved to 'new
media' to refresh the longevity
of the bits.

Some software like IBMs TSM can do this if you configure it correctly.
 But again, you still have to
deal with drives, media, libraries, and software license fees.

Like I said... no good permanent answer (at this point).

><> ... Jack
Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart... Colossians 3:23




From: blu-Z8efaSeK1ezqlBn2x/YWAg at public.gmane.org (Edward Ned Harvey)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:44:46 -0400
Subject: Tape vs disk cost
In-Reply-To: <4BAFE193.9080601-OGhnF3Lt4opAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
References: <4BA9211D.3030400@blu.org>
	<4BAF55EA.5010108@mail2.gis.net>	<4BAF71FA.2010403@blu.org>
	<4BAFE193.9080601@buttery.org>
Message-ID: <000101cacf35$3e1d89e0$ba589da0$@com>

> > Tapes when properly recorded, handled  and stored provide the
> > best cost per byte.
> 
> Looks like this is still true, but only if you're storing a LOT of
> bytes. I looked up media sizes and prices; the current state of the art

Everytime I re-examine this, roughly speaking, the breakeven point is approx
10 disks or tapes.  More than that, tapes are cheaper.  Less than that,
disks are cheaper.

Both media come down in price at approximately the same pace, but disks come
from a lot more different manufacturers, so incrementally the jumps are very
small.  While a new tape platform comes out every 12-18 months, so the jumps
are less frequent.