9 May
2007
9 May
'07
9:33 a.m.
At 9:53 AM -0400 5/9/07, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Personally I'd rate it a bit different.
DLT > 4mm DAT > QIC > 8mm
I don't remember ever dealing with Travan, though I think I have a couple
drives in the collection I've built at work.
I definitely wouldn't rate DAT/DDS anywhere near that highly. I've
found that 8mm tapes are fine if you don't write over them again and
again. I can't say the same for DDS.
I'm less concerned about the ability to rewrite the tapes than I am
about the ability to *READ* the tapes. My experience has shown that
DDS1 tapes are an absolute nightmare, as are 8mm tapes. However,
we've had pretty good luck at work recovering data from DDS2 and
newer DAT tapes, as well as QIC150 tapes (though it's been years
since anyone has turned up with one of those).
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
8 mm wasn't bad. At about that time, we were
heavily involved in
specifying tape for customers and we tended to rank things this
way:
DLT > 8mm > 4mm DAT > Travan > QIC.
Interesting. That's about my
assessment too, though I don't use
tapes all that much.