Tape Backup

[lxskllr]

I've recently been trying to get data off of old backup tapes from work. Somebody threw the hardware out, so I've been using a tape drive I got from a thrift shop, and one I scavenged out of a dumpster(Colorado, and Seagate respectively). I haven't had any luck so far, but it brings to mind a question I've always wanted to ask. Why use tapes instead of a external HD?

I've never liked tapes for anything. It seems like they're more likely to have problems, and in my case above they're tied to proprietary hardware/software which makes recovery difficult as time passes. So my question is why use tape? It seems to me the only advantage is it's small size, otherwise an HD seems better to me in every respect.

 

[hoovie]

While there are inherent downsides to tapes, such as it being an 'exposed' media, and that you must find the data sequentially, when they were introduced, it was the largest storage medium available, AFAIK. I think that a lot of businesses that started out using tape for storage, just continued using them for backups longer than they probably should have, but on the upside, the media is transferable between devices, unlike hard drives, where the device, for the most part, IS the media. granted you CAN save the information on the platters, should the motor or any other mechanical part fail, but it is quite expensive, as I understand it.

 

[lxskllr]

Physical failure was the one downside I thought about, but that risk could be minimized by making duplicate backups. As cheap as HDs are now, it doesn't take much money to use multiple drives, especially when you compare them to the cost of high capacity tapes.

With the task in my previous post it would have been easy as pie to hook an HD up to a computer so I could get the information off. If it didn't work I would at least know why. As it is now, I don't know whether the old drives I'm using, or bad tapes are the reason I can't get them to work. Hell, one of those stupid things works off of a floppy controller LoL

 

[corkyg]

I stopped using tape backups about 1998, and instead, started using the duplicate drives.

Today, with the advent of eSATA connections, there is no reason not to use a backup HDD - or even multiple HDDs. It is faster and cheaper, and with a true duplicate, recovery from a drive failure is really quick - no restoration of data or software - just swap drives.

The latter can be done just flipping a switch. Tape is very 1980s.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: corkyg
I stopped using tape backups about 1998, and instead, started using the duplicate drives.

Today, with the advent of eSATA connections, there is no reason not to use a backup HDD - or even multiple HDDs. It is faster and cheaper, and with a true duplicate, recovery from a drive failure is really quick - no restoration of data or software - just swap drives.

The latter can be done just flipping a switch. Tape is very 1980s.

Text

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Rubycon


Text

LoL :^D I want a tape sucks T-shirt :^)

 

[0roo0roo]

tape used to keep up with hd capacity, not anymore obviously. let alone price

 

[sparks]

I see no reason to use tape on a personal level but companies still rely heavily on tape. Where I work, we make daily backups of all of our company data and the tapes are stored off site. It is used for business continuity and archival purposes.

 

[cubby1223]

400gb of uncompressed data storage for $35:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16840999053

Hard drives are still at $100 for an internal 400gb drive.

Companies need lots and lots and lots of backups, for (1) archival purposes, some companies keep a monthly backup going back many years, and (2) maximize the chances of recovering a lost or corrupt file, remembering that you don't always notice a file missing the next day, or perhaps even the next week.

As for the original post, tape drives have internal compression algorithms, you can't always take a tape, put it in a different manufacturer's drive, and have it pull off the data.

 

[0roo0roo]

hm interesting. guess they do have something decent after all
i just remember a while back it wasn't quite as competitive

 

[0roo0roo]

whoops n/m, the drive costs 1,600+bucks.
large company type of thing i guess

 

[Paperdoc]

I am just about to throw out on old backup tape system. It is a Colorado 250MB system (used 120 MB tapes, of which I have several, and did on-the-fly compression to fit up to 250 MB on each tape) with software that ran under DOS 6.1 and 6.22. It would put a backup set on as many tapes as it took, and allow you flexible restoration tools. It connected to the floppy drive controller via a special cable that fed both the two floppy drives and the tape drive - and I have that cable, too.

As far as I now, the system is fully functional, although I have not used it for maybe a decade. I'm not sure whether I can find the software, but I could try to get it off the old HDD it had been on - can't seem to find the original installation diskettes. So, if you want the hardware and software, let me know with a PM on the AnandTech Forums.

Of course, I don't know whether this will help you or not. As you say, the files on tape often were in a proprietary format, especially when you consider they were compressed. Moreover, if it's a multi-tape backup set, I cannot remember whether you needed the entire set to access anything on a particular tape. On the plus side, the Colorado system was very widely sold and used, so just maybe that's what you have.

 

[lxskllr]

I appreciate the offer, but I don't think it would help. The HP Colorado tape drive I got from the thrift shop sounds exactly like what you have. I think all of the HP stuff I got was brand new. It had been opened, but the drive was in a anti static bag, and all the accessories were still sealed.

I think my problem might be that the tapes were created with different drives. Both of the types of tapes I had were made on external drives, and the 2 drives I have are internal. I wouldn't have thought it would make a difference, but apparently it does :^/

 

[Paperdoc]

You're right, internal vs external should not matter. However, even within the HP and Colorado systems, there were several formats with different capacities over the years. Beyond that were other makers with their own drives and software. Now, the Colorado system I have used QIC-80 tape cartridges, as did many others. I thought all QIC-80 tape drives were supposed to write and read the same way uncompressed, but I am not so sure about whether they all used compatible compression algorithms. And if you do not have tape cartridges marked QIC-80, then you're into another mechanical and logical format.

 

[Modelworks]

The problem with reading tapes created on a different drive, but same model is an old one.
The drive heads are aligned in such a way that if one is just a mm off you can have problems reading the tapes.
You might try opening the drives and tweaking the head alignment some to see if that helps.


They still use tape backups at tons of companies.
One reason is cost versus storage space.
You can put 400GB on a tape, uncompressed or 800GB compressed.
The tape cost 40.00 .
The tape is also easier to transport and isn't subject to damage from dropping like a hard drive would be.

Currently there is no other media that can backup 400GB for 40.00

The problem is cost of ownership of the drive.
They target them to business and price them accordingly.

I would love to have a 400Gb tape drive.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
You're right, internal vs external should not matter. However, even within the HP and Colorado systems, there were several formats with different capacities over the years. Beyond that were other makers with their own drives and software. Now, the Colorado system I have used QIC-80 tape cartridges, as did many others. I thought all QIC-80 tape drives were supposed to write and read the same way uncompressed, but I am not so sure about whether they all used compatible compression algorithms. And if you do not have tape cartridges marked QIC-80, then you're into another mechanical and logical format.

I just looked at the tape, and it's 400mb uncompressed. Apparently it's a TR-1 mini cart. I wish we still had the hardware these tapes were written on, but I guess in that case I wouldn't have my special little task :^P

I'm kind of the unofficial IT guy at work. We outsource our meager IT tasks, so I take care of the quick/easy stuff, or things that IT doesn't want to fool with. One time we had a hd die, and all IT said was I guess you need a new drive :^O Kind of a shocking dismissal, without even trying to get the data off I thought. I took the drive home and got the data off using Pcinspector, fairly easily I might add. This situation's kind of the same thing. The data isn't worth professional extraction, but since I enjoy the work I'm giving it a try. I probably have over 20 hours in the process. If I get the information I'll bill my hours based on what I think the data's worth, which will be less than the hours I actually have in it.

I still think HDs are better, at least for our small company. We have a different tape system now(not sure exactly what kind) but I was told the tape cost was $60 per tape. These aren't huge capacity either. For the same amount of money you could buy an HD, and then you know you're not tied to a proprietary system that you'll have difficulty replicating in the future.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The problem with reading tapes created on a different drive, but same model is an old one.
The drive heads are aligned in such a way that if one is just a mm off you can have problems reading the tapes.
You might try opening the drives and tweaking the head alignment some to see if that helps.


They still use tape backups at tons of companies.
One reason is cost versus storage space.
You can put 400GB on a tape, uncompressed or 800GB compressed.
The tape cost 40.00 .
The tape is also easier to transport and isn't subject to damage from dropping like a hard drive would be.

Currently there is no other media that can backup 400GB for 40.00

The problem is cost of ownership of the drive.
They target them to business and price them accordingly.

I would love to have a 400Gb tape drive.

yea 1600-3000+ is a tad frightening lol to justify that you gotta put some serious investment in tapes as well. and of course backup tape drives as well.
damn shame, oh well

 

[Paperdoc]

Back in the 80's and 90's, tape made a lot of sense because HDD's were expensive and smaller (a lot!). For the average individual, though, and even for small businesses, the cost and capacity of HDD units today makes them a good medium for backups. However, few people actually devise a system of having, say, half a dozen or more extra HDD's in a rotating backup plan with off-site storage, which is what really should be done. On the other hand, doing that same job with tapes may not be any easier or cheaper.

I have a story to illustrate the need for good backups, from a large business where I worked a few years ago. One of the main server systems, with a RAID 5 disk system, failed - one of the HHD's, of course. No problem, you just swap in a new HDD and have it rebuild. Well, small problem, the company and their hardware supplier did not have the right HDD unit in town to swap in, so it was a day's delay to get started. When they did, they discovered that a SECOND HDD unit also had significant errors so the RAID array could NOT be automatically rebuilt! After replacing two HHD's they had to restore the entire set of files (minus a few of the most recent!) from backups. Now, they had a good backup system both on- and off-site, so it was done, but it took nearly three more loooonnnnggg days to complete the task.

Who woulda thunk a RAID 5 system would fail from nearly-simultaneous breakdown of two drives? And, why did the RAID system fail to recognize and flag the first failure in time before a second went, too?