Re: Hardware backup
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.comREMOVE)
Date: 10/23/03
- Next message: Bill Vermillion: "Re: sco-list: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers..."
- Previous message: Patrice Brien: "Re: VPN printers"
- In reply to: Gerardo Zenga: "Re: Hardware backup"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:25:18 GMT
In article <854c954c.0310221030.42a060c2@posting.google.com>,
Gerardo Zenga <zenga@igam.it> wrote:
>bv@wjv.comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion) wrote in message news:<Hn5wMz.LCF@wjv.com>...
>> In article <bn5ont$svp$3@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:
>> >Gerardo Zenga <zenga@igam.it> wrote:
>> >>I have a Compaq ML370 with ~200 GB HD (6 x 72GB - RAID 1); SCO Open Server 5.0.7.
>> >>Which hardware backup solution to use in order to backup data on my HD ?
>>
>> >http://aplawrence.com/Reviews/supertars.html
>> >http://aplawrence.com/Reviews/dvdram.html
>> >>Is there a way to use only one media ?
>> >Well, yeah, you CAN, but that's bad practice.
>> My interpretations when he said 'one media' was that it was to
>> be one tape for a backup instead of multiple which would require
>> human interventions, cascading tape drives, or a changer.
>> For 200GB he probably needs something like the AIT. Newest
>> version runs 500GB native and 1TB compressed, but the latest
>> DLT/LTO [forgot which one] surpassed the AIT on transfer speed
>> but hasn't hit the 1TB tape that I recall.
>> I'm assuming your 'bad practice' was assuming one tape used over
>> and over.
>> Bill
>Sorry for my english !
I interpreted what you said correctly - it was Tony who
thought you meant one tape over and over. The 'bad practice'
comment was directed to him.
>Yes, i intended "one tape for a backup instead of multiple" and not
>"using one tape over and over" (bad practice).
>I've seen on HP/Compaq web site AIT running 100 GB native and 200
>compressed. Is this the right solution for me ?
Only you can tell that. Exabyte has several DLT/SuperDLT
solutions. Sony and other AIT vendors keep playing leap frog with
the DLT and the LTO crowd. Each pushes the size and speed limit
and the end user wins.
>Or I need a 200 GB native solution ? (does it exist ?)
Yes they exist. The bigger the capacity the more money they cost.
The high end AIT is 500GB native - and the lower models [also
cheaper] are less.
Exabyte has their LTO and Mammoth. Quantum has the DLTs.
All rugged.
For smaller systems I find the Ecrix VXA is nice. It goes up
to about 60GB compressed. I have an IDE version on a client
Linux system [All their VXA-I drives are identical and just the
interface changes and the IDE identifies itself as SCSI]
In compressed mode I get 142MB/minute backup speed.
>Are there problems using compression ?
None at all. The compression is in hardware. And because of
that you can throw data to the drive when it runs in compressed
mode about twice as fast as in standard mode. That has two
advantages. The backups/restores go faster, and because the
drives are desinged with hours of operations as the point,
running compressed mode will mean the drive will last longer.
>P.S.
>I'm using SCO Open Server for mission critical applications since 1988
>(Xenix, 3.2.4.2, 5.0.4 and now 5.0.7) and I am a satisfied user of
>this O.S. (60 users connected to a SCO box working 24 x 7 x 365)
>Thanks mainly to this newsgroup I've solved all the problems with my
>Open Server.
>What about the future ?
My crystal ball is cloudy.
>Is this the moment to think about a Linux solution ?
Only you can determine that. You have to weigh the costs of
of SW upgrade versus learning curve and transporting the
applications to the new environment. In a 24x7 operation you
don't have a lot of time to experiment. And given the cost of
a 60 user license if you multiply that by
Your 24x7x365 must be interesting. That gives you 61320 days per
year, while the rest of us have to squeeze everything into
8760 hours. But given the latter figure times 60 users
you get over 525,000 hours of potential use.
If I pick a wild figure out of the air - say $3000 for
a 60 user license, that gives you a cost of 57 hundredth
of a cent per hour.
If you pay $50 [wild figure] for a boxed Linux then you go
from about 1/2 cent per hour OS cost to almost 1/1000th of a cent
per hour. But if the business will succeed or fail over such small
differences it's a poorly run business :-)
So the cost of the OS really isn't the reason to change from one OS
to another IMO.
For small offices - with just a couple of user - the OS cost
becomes higher.
Bill
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Next message: Bill Vermillion: "Re: sco-list: Re: SCO drop loyal resellers..."
- Previous message: Patrice Brien: "Re: VPN printers"
- In reply to: Gerardo Zenga: "Re: Hardware backup"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
