Data Storage - Tape Backups are NEVER Reliable

Author

Tape Backups are NEVER Reliable - EVER

Jolly Student

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Okay Folks:

Here is one for all of you who thought that people could not get any dumber.

Yes, I am cross posting here but the recommendations for such are only in
the case where the subject matter concerns a bunch of groups. I think this
qualifies as such.

I work for a mid-sized company (600 employees) whose "Technology Director"
has openly said that "Tape backups are not reliable". This director had a
"consultant" come in to back up his assertion, a consultant who asked to
check his email via his "AOL" account (indeed, his email address is
something like Iconsult_For_Companies@aol.com).

Enough jokes aside - its going to get serious and this group seems to be
spreading the rumor that "Tape Backups are Always Unreliable".

So we now we have a huge, Raid 5 server that has a pretty decent amount of
capacity and are using a company's software to that backups are quick and
slick. Cool, my life is so much easier. But thats it. . . we do NOT have
an offsite backup, we do NOT have another inhouse SDLT tape backup drive and
the entire compliment of our backup resides ONLY on this single Network
Attached Raid 5 server. Sure, its housed in a closet somewhere, but what if
we had a catastrophic failure, how about a huge fire, or a plane hitting us.

See, this "consultant" has "clients" in Manhattan who have their offices on
the 89th floor, but their Tapeless Backup servers in the basement. Errr, is
it me or do basements and the safes that may be contained therein get buried
under rubble, or are there some group of IT specialists out there who
specialize in nothing but digging out backup servers from the rubble.

As stupid as this question is, I need to basically find credible, reliable
sources of published information that basically say its really, really,
really dumb to not archive stuff onto some type of medium tape or otherwise.
This Raid 5 server that we have at our company is not a bottomless pit, but
the higher ups do not listen to me, only to the "director" who, along with
their "consultant" has them believing that the system we currently have in
place is relable.

Normally I would just shut my face since my life is a lot easier in terms of
backup, hell, set it and forget it is the name of the game. However, I know
full well that if we ever got hit with a major disaster the "director" would
be off on his vacation while the rest of us poor slobs had to restore data
from God knows where. Oh, and if we were to get hit by a brand new,
spanking virus because the "director's" kid came in and did so, well, our
Network Attached Storage pig would also suffer.

In short, I need some type of recommendation, in writing, in some type of
white paper, from some type of credible sources, that SDLT tape backup
drives, at least for the purpose of long term archiving are not "unreliable"
, they are only as "unreliable" as the poor work habits of the person who is
responsible for them.

Oh, and for the record, dear friends of mine swear by SDLT tape drives and
the like, but I cannot bring an IT manager from CitiCorp into this
discussion because, since he is a friend of mine, his opinion is not
"neutral".

Please help

Roger.

Al Dykes

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

In article <baIAc.10842$V57.2143290@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
Jolly Student <jolly@joy.com> wrote:
>Okay Folks:
>
>
>
>Here is one for all of you who thought that people could not get any dumber.
>
>
>
>Yes, I am cross posting here but the recommendations for such are only in
>the case where the subject matter concerns a bunch of groups. I think this
>qualifies as such.
>
>
>
>I work for a mid-sized company (600 employees) whose "Technology Director"
>has openly said that "Tape backups are not reliable". This director had a
>"consultant" come in to back up his assertion, a consultant who asked to
>check his email via his "AOL" account (indeed, his email address is
>something like Iconsult_For_Companies@aol.com).
>
>
>
>Enough jokes aside - its going to get serious and this group seems to be
>spreading the rumor that "Tape Backups are Always Unreliable".
>
>
>
>So we now we have a huge, Raid 5 server that has a pretty decent amount of
>capacity and are using a company's software to that backups are quick and
>slick. Cool, my life is so much easier. But thats it. . . we do NOT have
>an offsite backup, we do NOT have another inhouse SDLT tape backup drive and
>the entire compliment of our backup resides ONLY on this single Network
>Attached Raid 5 server. Sure, its housed in a closet somewhere, but what if
>we had a catastrophic failure, how about a huge fire, or a plane hitting us.
>
>
>
>See, this "consultant" has "clients" in Manhattan who have their offices on
>the 89th floor, but their Tapeless Backup servers in the basement. Errr, is
>it me or do basements and the safes that may be contained therein get buried
>under rubble, or are there some group of IT specialists out there who
>specialize in nothing but digging out backup servers from the rubble.
>
>
>
>As stupid as this question is, I need to basically find credible, reliable
>sources of published information that basically say its really, really,
>really dumb to not archive stuff onto some type of medium tape or otherwise.
>This Raid 5 server that we have at our company is not a bottomless pit, but
>the higher ups do not listen to me, only to the "director" who, along with
>their "consultant" has them believing that the system we currently have in
>place is relable.
>
>
>
>Normally I would just shut my face since my life is a lot easier in terms of
>backup, hell, set it and forget it is the name of the game. However, I know
>full well that if we ever got hit with a major disaster the "director" would
>be off on his vacation while the rest of us poor slobs had to restore data
>from God knows where. Oh, and if we were to get hit by a brand new,
>spanking virus because the "director's" kid came in and did so, well, our
>Network Attached Storage pig would also suffer.
>
>
>
>In short, I need some type of recommendation, in writing, in some type of
>white paper, from some type of credible sources, that SDLT tape backup
>drives, at least for the purpose of long term archiving are not "unreliable"
>, they are only as "unreliable" as the poor work habits of the person who is
>responsible for them.
>
>
>
>Oh, and for the record, dear friends of mine swear by SDLT tape drives and
>the like, but I cannot bring an IT manager from CitiCorp into this
>discussion because, since he is a friend of mine, his opinion is not
>"neutral".
>
>
>
>Please help
>

My take on this is _nothing_ is reliable (as in never screws up).
(cite: Rules, by Murphy)

Backup and contingency plans need to assume that two or three things
can go bad, in the worst possible way, and the the decision as to how
much (or little) risk to accept is to be made by senior management,
based on cost/risk tradeoffs made by staff for him..

Good tape equipment, properly maintained and used, is great but the
dog could eat your only good backup cartridge.

--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Jolly Student

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Dear Al:

Your wisdom is appreciated and its obvious that you and I have chewed on
some of the same dirt and may have even had MRE's in the same foxhole
(Desert Storm?)

Yes, putting all of your eggs in one basket, etc., is foolish. My problem
here is not to pull a bunch of citations from learned colleagues like
yourself, but to have white papers and the like lined up so that the most
obvious can be pointed out.

Basically, I am dealing with somebody who believes that they are the only
one who is ever right, and yet when something fails because of his fault, he
is suddenly not available or has to go off to a kids recital, or has a dr's
appointment, or otherwise has some other excuse while the rest of the IT
foot soldiers have to make up for his errors.

Regards,

Roger

Faeandar

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:39:45 GMT, "Jolly Student" <jolly@joy.com>
wrote:

>Dear Al:
>
>Your wisdom is appreciated and its obvious that you and I have chewed on
>some of the same dirt and may have even had MRE's in the same foxhole
>(Desert Storm?)
>
>Yes, putting all of your eggs in one basket, etc., is foolish. My problem
>here is not to pull a bunch of citations from learned colleagues like
>yourself, but to have white papers and the like lined up so that the most
>obvious can be pointed out.
>
>Basically, I am dealing with somebody who believes that they are the only
>one who is ever right, and yet when something fails because of his fault, he
>is suddenly not available or has to go off to a kids recital, or has a dr's
>appointment, or otherwise has some other excuse while the rest of the IT
>foot soldiers have to make up for his errors.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>

Start looking for another job and soak up the sun while you can.
These guys are going to eat it sooner or later and if you're still
around you will take the blame, somehow someway.
Even if you have a dated e-mail showing your recommendations and how
this course of action will lead to the company going under.

Sell any stock you have and get the hell out.

But to address your question:
I don't know of any white papers that are written for someone so
idiotic. All I've seen assume you actually want to recover from a
disaster. And most of those assume you some semblance of
understanding when it comes to reliability and recoverability.

If "the director" looks at you like a bug when you try to explain what
will happen in the event of a plane/earthquake/virus then you've
already lost. Unless you can get the ear of someone further up you're
screwed.

Good luck on that, I'd be interested to hear how it pans out.

~F

Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Clinging to sanity, Jolly Student mumbled in his beard:

> I work for a mid-sized company (600 employees) whose "Technology Director"
> has openly said that "Tape backups are not reliable".

I guess if he wants hold to that opinion, then let him. Don't try to argue
on that. Instead, argue on the number of failures it takes to shut the IT
down.

Like, no offsite backup --> fire at the place and we're out.
Backup server's filesystem is online --> bug/virus eats filesystem and we^re
out

etc.

Convince him that (using tape, RAID, whatever) he doesn't want a system
where one single failure can take the company out. If he wants to do
offsite backup with RAID storage over network, fine. Tape or disk or
whatever doesn't matter, number of failures to kill the IT infrastructure
is the thing that matters here.

(sorry, I know this won't really be ammo for you as it's not in a pdf with a
good logo on top, but it's the best I can do)

cheers
- -- vbi

- --
featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/smtp

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: get my key from http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/92082481

iKcEARECAGcFAkDUHGlgGmh0dHA6Ly9mb3J0eXR3
by5jaC9sZWdhbC9ncGcvZW1h
aWwuMjAwMjA4MjI/ dmVyc2lvbj0xLjUmbWQ1c3VtPTVkZmY4NjhkMTE4
NDMyNzYw
NzFiMjVlYjcwMDZkYTNlAAoJEIukMYvlp/fW4n4An1pGXas2XQ/okitb7+/iikIN
dB/5AJ92QlhWHDjekmcplswrD8HyNRZgpA==
=0ASY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jolly Student

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Thanks to all who have responded with the obvious, common sense approach to
this matter, ERGO, that tape backups, or some other offsite type of backup
system is a necessity.

What I forgot to mention here is that I am dealing with "Educators" who are
really, really dense when it comes to anything having to do with technology.
Essentially, you have one director who feels that tape backups are not
reliable, ever, period and that experience is based upon his personal
feelings or the feelings of others who are just plain too lazy to set up
some type of disaster mechanism off site be it tape, hard drive, magic
F***ING oxide pixie-dust media or what have you.

I know guys and gals, I know. . . just relying on stuff on site no matter
what is just plain dumb. Even for those of you out there who may think that
tapes do fail from time to time (of course they do), you would have to say
that if you regularly check the tapes, the backup devices, perform routine
restorations and all of the other "Duhhhh-basics" you are going to be in
better shape.

My "thing" is wanting to walk off-site with a tape or two in my briefcase,
come home and stick them in my firebox on a rotating basis. If a plan
decided to land on our facilty, or if a nicely placed bolt of lightning hit
the building and used the network cable as a means to send its electron
offspring to to their worst, we would be screwed, the director would go on
break or hide their head in the sand and the grunts would have to be the
ones doing the clean up. Except that, in this case, all of us grunts are in
agreement that we will go so very high up in our chain of command that we
will let them know this was preventable and produce a plethora of
documentation despite the "director's" 'feelings that tapes are never
reliable".

In short, I know that all of you here are credible sources, Jesus, its like
telling you to keep a spare tire in the trunk of your car or to wear your
body armor when you are going into Bagdad, but what I cannot convey enough
to you guys is that I need the shit, the goods, in the form of papers.

Theres got to be some white papers out there, hell, I got calls to MIS
buddies of mine as far as the NSA asking if they have anything along the
lines of "duhhh, you better backup off site" white papers to show this
director.

I can't believe that its come to this. That there are those in our industry
that are so stupid and are permitted to be in charge of people like us.

Anyways, enough rambling (jokes about breaks, drinks, drugs, etc., will be
heartily laughed at, I assure you), but I think that if such a paper or set
of papers could be found, perhaps some other poor slobs out there besides me
will be able to sigh when a restoration is performed and not fry when they
are into their fifteenth cup of coffee while the supervisor is home banging
his mother up the butt.

Thanks for your time,

Rog
"Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder" <grazdan@fortytwo.ch> wrote in
message news:10363946.NZc62mh6bI@altfrangg.fortytwo.ch...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Clinging to sanity, Jolly Student mumbled in his beard:
>
Director"[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I guess if he wants hold to that opinion, then let him. Don't try to argue
> on that. Instead, argue on the number of failures it takes to shut the IT
> down.
>
> Like, no offsite backup --> fire at the place and we're out.
> Backup server's filesystem is online --> bug/virus eats filesystem and
we^re
> out
>
> etc.
>
> Convince him that (using tape, RAID, whatever) he doesn't want a system
> where one single failure can take the company out. If he wants to do
> offsite backup with RAID storage over network, fine. Tape or disk or
> whatever doesn't matter, number of failures to kill the IT infrastructure
> is the thing that matters here.
>
> (sorry, I know this won't really be ammo for you as it's not in a pdf with
a
> good logo on top, but it's the best I can do)
>
> cheers
> - -- vbi
>
>
>
> - --
> featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/smtp
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: get my key from http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/92082481
>
> iKcEARECAGcFAkDUHGlgGmh0dHA6Ly9mb3J0eXR3
by5jaC9sZWdhbC9ncGcvZW1h
> aWwuMjAwMjA4MjI/ dmVyc2lvbj0xLjUmbWQ1c3VtPTVkZmY4NjhkMTE4
NDMyNzYw
> NzFiMjVlYjcwMDZkYTNlAAoJEIukMYvlp/fW4n4An1pGXas2XQ/okitb7+/iikIN
> dB/5AJ92QlhWHDjekmcplswrD8HyNRZgpA==
> =0ASY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ron Reaugh

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

"Jolly Student" <jolly@joy.com> wrote in message
news:baIAc.10842$V57.2143290@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Okay Folks:
>
> Here is one for all of you who thought that people could not get any
dumber.
>
> Yes, I am cross posting here but the recommendations for such are only in
> the case where the subject matter concerns a bunch of groups.

Your cross posts did not appear. What were the other NGs?

> I think this
> qualifies as such.
>
> I work for a mid-sized company (600 employees) whose "Technology Director"
> has openly said that "Tape backups are not reliable".

For those of us who have been around for quite awhile that statement is very
accurate. Tape backups have never been really relaible because tape
technology is inherrently unrelaible.

> This director had a
> "consultant" come in to back up his assertion, a consultant who asked to
> check his email via his "AOL" account (indeed, his email address is
> something like Iconsult_For_Companies@aol.com).
>
> Enough jokes aside - its going to get serious and this group seems to be
> spreading the rumor that "Tape Backups are Always Unreliable".

They are right HOWEVER that does not mean that tapes have no useful purpose
in any situation.

> So we now we have a huge, Raid 5 server that has a pretty decent amount of
> capacity and are using a company's software to that backups are quick and
> slick. Cool, my life is so much easier. But thats it. . . we do NOT have
> an offsite backup, we do NOT have another inhouse SDLT tape backup drive
and
> the entire compliment of our backup resides ONLY on this single Network
> Attached Raid 5 server. Sure, its housed in a closet somewhere, but what
if
> we had a catastrophic failure, how about a huge fire, or a plane hitting
us.

The issue of tapes and offsite backups have little to do with one another.
Offsite backups are generally mandatory.

> See, this "consultant" has "clients" in Manhattan who have their offices
on
> the 89th floor, but their Tapeless Backup servers in the basement.

Basement is ok but basement of a building three blocks away is better and
best of all is in a granite mine on a different continent....well no best is
in quantum entangled storage in another galaxy<g>.

> Errr, is
> it me or do basements and the safes that may be contained therein get
buried
> under rubble, or are there some group of IT specialists out there who
> specialize in nothing but digging out backup servers from the rubble.

It's all a cost risk issue. There may be an inexpensive high bandwidth link
easily available to the tapeless backup server in the basement but the link
gets vastly more expensive as the distance grows. For instance generally
such a link within a building has no regulatory requirements except for fire
code on the wires themselves. Run that same link to a building three blocks
away may get into a whole bunch of regulated arenas and costs.

Tapeless backup is clearly the way to go in most situations.

> As stupid as this question is, I need to basically find credible, reliable
> sources of published information that basically say its really, really,
> really dumb to not archive stuff onto some type of medium tape or
otherwise.

You wont find any really smart such claims as tapes just aren't the answer
in many cases.

Backup has little to do with tape.
Backup criteria include:
Offsite. How far is the question?
How many independent(in both number and location) offsite backup copies are
really needed? Many of the existant backup cycle strategies come from tape
technology and are often just bunk for pure backup strategy.
How does backup strategy fit with the overall recovery strategy. If the
whole 90 story building collapses then do you have a recovery strategy
whereby the business can start again in two days in temp facilities in
NJ(was the building occupied when it collapsed?)? Maybe the backups in a
hard basement can be dug out faster than the business can start functioning
again?

> This Raid 5 server that we have at our company is not a bottomless pit,
but
> the higher ups do not listen to me, only to the "director" who, along with
> their "consultant" has them believing that the system we currently have in
> place is relable.

If well designed it IS rather reliable.

> Normally I would just shut my face since my life is a lot easier in terms
of
> backup, hell, set it and forget it is the name of the game. However, I
know
> full well that if we ever got hit with a major disaster the "director"
would
> be off on his vacation while the rest of us poor slobs had to restore data
> from God knows where. Oh, and if we were to get hit by a brand new,
> spanking virus because the "director's" kid came in and did so, well, our
> Network Attached Storage pig would also suffer.

Not if well designed. The 'backup server' I've been talking about is a
server specifically designed for backups and nothing else and therefore
would be highly immue from such external attacks.

> In short, I need some type of recommendation, in writing, in some type of
> white paper, from some type of credible sources, that SDLT tape backup
> drives, at least for the purpose of long term archiving

Tapes have NEVER been considered a viable "long term archiving" medium.

> are not "unreliable"
> , they are only as "unreliable" as the poor work habits of the person who
is
> responsible for them.

Reliability is always the sum of all such factors and any backup strategy
should look more towards the least common denominator...Murphy....an
automatic corrollary to Murphiy's law is that tapes are unrelaible. The
proof of that is the incredible cycle strategies that have developed over
the years for tape backups. That comes from the fact that too frequently
the tape isn't usable for any one of a number of reasons.

> Oh, and for the record, dear friends of mine swear by SDLT tape drives and
> the like, but I cannot bring an IT manager from CitiCorp into this
> discussion because, since he is a friend of mine, his opinion is not
> "neutral".

Tapes are on their way out in many situations(NOT ALL).

For all modest configuration servers and workstations I'm telling folks to
use removeable SATA HDs in trays with good carrying cases for offsite
backup. Firewire or USB2 is also viable.

Paul Repacholi

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

"Jolly Student" <jolly@joy.com> writes:

> Thanks to all who have responded with the obvious, common sense
> approach to this matter, ERGO, that tape backups, or some other
> offsite type of backup system is a necessity.

Run, do not walk to a comp.risks archive and wallow in over a decade
of idiocy, screwups and XXXX-up by the numbers(again). Select as many
as you can stomach...

Rule 1: A backup does not exist until it has been properly restored.

Rule 2: Backups are not crispy and toasty. If it is in the building,
it is not a backup.

Rule 3: The primary function of a fire safe is to provide a cool quiet
place for all the steam and acidic fumes to condense and concentrate.

Rule 4: It will never happen to you. Disasters only happen at previous
places of employment.

Subrule 1b: You DO have a spare drive don't you...

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

sTALe Watch

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Jolly Student, you and I are cut from the same mold. You try to make life
better for all, but are stymied by stupidity.

You will go far, but not at that company.
Do what you can, but keep packing your bags with successes that you can
point to when you apply for next job which will be at a company with more
reasonable people.

Ask this at your next team meeting: If this company can pack all those
numb-nuts into one room why can't they pack the important company data onto
a single backup tape?

Of course, that is a stupid thing to say, and you will be labeled a
controversial oddball.
But at least you can practice giving them the finger each time your career
takes another flush down the toilet.

I would like to know how it goes.

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b12Bc.98622$Gx4.73313@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Jolly Student" <jolly@joy.com> wrote in message
> news:baIAc.10842$V57.2143290@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> dumber.
in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Your cross posts did not appear. What were the other NGs?
>
Director"[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> For those of us who have been around for quite awhile that statement is
very
> accurate. Tape backups have never been really relaible because tape
> technology is inherrently unrelaible.
>
>
> They are right HOWEVER that does not mean that tapes have no useful
purpose
> in any situation.
>
of[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
> and
what[vbcol=seagreen]
> if
> us.
>
> The issue of tapes and offsite backups have little to do with one another.
> Offsite backups are generally mandatory.
>
> on
>
> Basement is ok but basement of a building three blocks away is better and
> best of all is in a granite mine on a different continent....well no best
is
> in quantum entangled storage in another galaxy<g>.
>
> buried
>
> It's all a cost risk issue. There may be an inexpensive high bandwidth
link
> easily available to the tapeless backup server in the basement but the
link
> gets vastly more expensive as the distance grows. For instance generally
> such a link within a building has no regulatory requirements except for
fire
> code on the wires themselves. Run that same link to a building three
blocks
> away may get into a whole bunch of regulated arenas and costs.
>
> Tapeless backup is clearly the way to go in most situations.
>
reliable[vbcol=seagreen]
> otherwise.
>
> You wont find any really smart such claims as tapes just aren't the answer
> in many cases.
>
> Backup has little to do with tape.
> Backup criteria include:
> Offsite. How far is the question?
> How many independent(in both number and location) offsite backup copies
are
> really needed? Many of the existant backup cycle strategies come from
tape
> technology and are often just bunk for pure backup strategy.
> How does backup strategy fit with the overall recovery strategy. If the
> whole 90 story building collapses then do you have a recovery strategy
> whereby the business can start again in two days in temp facilities in
> NJ(was the building occupied when it collapsed?)? Maybe the backups in a
> hard basement can be dug out faster than the business can start
functioning
> again?
>
> but
with[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> If well designed it IS rather reliable.
>
terms[vbcol=seagreen]
> of
> know
> would
data[vbcol=seagreen]
our[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Not if well designed. The 'backup server' I've been talking about is a
> server specifically designed for backups and nothing else and therefore
> would be highly immue from such external attacks.
>
of[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Tapes have NEVER been considered a viable "long term archiving" medium.
>
who[vbcol=seagreen]
> is
>
> Reliability is always the sum of all such factors and any backup strategy
> should look more towards the least common denominator...Murphy....an
> automatic corrollary to Murphiy's law is that tapes are unrelaible. The
> proof of that is the incredible cycle strategies that have developed over
> the years for tape backups. That comes from the fact that too frequently
> the tape isn't usable for any one of a number of reasons.
>
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Tapes are on their way out in many situations(NOT ALL).
>
> For all modest configuration servers and workstations I'm telling folks to
> use removeable SATA HDs in trays with good carrying cases for offsite
> backup. Firewire or USB2 is also viable.
>
>

Jolly Student

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Ron:

Thank you for your words of wisdom. I personally like the fast no tape
system but the bug up my butt is that we dont have anything off site. If
you told me to get this or that and that its more reliable than tape, but
that I can TAKE IT OFF SITE, I dont care if it looks like a barbie lunchbox.
.. . sign me up.

Do you have any info on credible removable SATA HDs in trays and good
carrying cases for offsite backup. Right now I have a pair of Imega 280gb
fire wire drives that I am trying to use for the purpose, but they have
their issues. I still like the convenience of tape on account of size, but
if you are telling me there is something more reliable than tape and that
has the offsite features I am looking for, great, no sweat, I will do it.

I fear that the director will, however, then have another excuse because I
think the issue here is that he just wants to be right. My fear is
protecting our organization from a major disaster and although I am being
overly cautious, I really like the idea of taking a full backup home with me
on a Monday (after full backup on Sunday) and then the baby backups the
other days for the sake of, well, just in case something happens, then its a
pain in the butt, but not a total disaster.

These removable devices that are not tape based, how are they in terms of
ease of portability and size. Well, I know they will not likely be cheap,
but, well. Shoot sir.

Thank you for your time and wisdom.

>
> "Jolly Student" <jolly@joy.com> wrote in message
> news:baIAc.10842$V57.2143290@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> dumber.
in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Your cross posts did not appear. What were the other NGs?
>
Director"[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> For those of us who have been around for quite awhile that statement is
very
> accurate. Tape backups have never been really relaible because tape
> technology is inherrently unrelaible.
>
>
> They are right HOWEVER that does not mean that tapes have no useful
purpose
> in any situation.
>
of[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
> and
what[vbcol=seagreen]
> if
> us.
>
> The issue of tapes and offsite backups have little to do with one another.
> Offsite backups are generally mandatory.
>
> on
>
> Basement is ok but basement of a building three blocks away is better and
> best of all is in a granite mine on a different continent....well no best
is
> in quantum entangled storage in another galaxy<g>.
>
> buried
>
> It's all a cost risk issue. There may be an inexpensive high bandwidth
link
> easily available to the tapeless backup server in the basement but the
link
> gets vastly more expensive as the distance grows. For instance generally
> such a link within a building has no regulatory requirements except for
fire
> code on the wires themselves. Run that same link to a building three
blocks
> away may get into a whole bunch of regulated arenas and costs.
>
> Tapeless backup is clearly the way to go in most situations.
>
reliable[vbcol=seagreen]
> otherwise.
>
> You wont find any really smart such claims as tapes just aren't the answer
> in many cases.
>
> Backup has little to do with tape.
> Backup criteria include:
> Offsite. How far is the question?
> How many independent(in both number and location) offsite backup copies
are
> really needed? Many of the existant backup cycle strategies come from
tape
> technology and are often just bunk for pure backup strategy.
> How does backup strategy fit with the overall recovery strategy. If the
> whole 90 story building collapses then do you have a recovery strategy
> whereby the business can start again in two days in temp facilities in
> NJ(was the building occupied when it collapsed?)? Maybe the backups in a
> hard basement can be dug out faster than the business can start
functioning
> again?
>
> but
with[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> If well designed it IS rather reliable.
>
terms[vbcol=seagreen]
> of
> know
> would
data[vbcol=seagreen]
our[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Not if well designed. The 'backup server' I've been talking about is a
> server specifically designed for backups and nothing else and therefore
> would be highly immue from such external attacks.
>
of[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Tapes have NEVER been considered a viable "long term archiving" medium.
>
who[vbcol=seagreen]
> is
>
> Reliability is always the sum of all such factors and any backup strategy
> should look more towards the least common denominator...Murphy....an
> automatic corrollary to Murphiy's law is that tapes are unrelaible. The
> proof of that is the incredible cycle strategies that have developed over
> the years for tape backups. That comes from the fact that too frequently
> the tape isn't usable for any one of a number of reasons.
>
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Tapes are on their way out in many situations(NOT ALL).
>
> For all modest configuration servers and workstations I'm telling folks to
> use removeable SATA HDs in trays with good carrying cases for offsite
> backup. Firewire or USB2 is also viable.
>
>

J. Clarke

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Jolly Student wrote:

> Ron:
>
> Thank you for your words of wisdom. I personally like the fast no tape
> system but the bug up my butt is that we dont have anything off site. If
> you told me to get this or that and that its more reliable than tape, but
> that I can TAKE IT OFF SITE, I dont care if it looks like a barbie
> lunchbox.
> . . sign me up.

I'm not sure if it's the troll in me or if it's just that that image is too
good to pass up. But why not build yourself a couple or three little
mini-ITX machines in Barbie lunchboxen? Assuming of course that Barbie
lunchboxen aren't horribly expensive collectables these days. Just plug it
into the network and do your backup and take it home.

> Do you have any info on credible removable SATA HDs in trays and good
> carrying cases for offsite backup.

All SATA drives are inherently removable--hot-plug is part of the spec. All
you need is something with the right backplane and mounting rails, similar
to SCA hot-swap enclosures for SCSI. Froogle CSE-M35T1B for one example
from a reputable manufacturer--Supermicro is a well established
manufacturer of server and workstation motherboards and components. Or you
can just run the power and signal cables out a hole in the front of the
case and plug the drive into them.

As for good carrying cases, go to the Pelican site <http://www.pelican.com/>
and find one the size you want.

> Right now I have a pair of Imega 280gb
> fire wire drives that I am trying to use for the purpose, but they have
> their issues. I still like the convenience of tape on account of size,
> but if you are telling me there is something more reliable than tape and
> that has the offsite features I am looking for, great, no sweat, I will do
> it.

DLT cartridges are only slightly smaller than 3-1/2" disks and somewhat
larger than 2-1/2". LTOs are larger. I don't see the physical dimensions
of the media as an issue unless you're willing to go to helical scan.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I fear that the director will, however, then have another excuse because I
> think the issue here is that he just wants to be right. My fear is
> protecting our organization from a major disaster and although I am being
> overly cautious, I really like the idea of taking a full backup home with
> me on a Monday (after full backup on Sunday) and then the baby backups the
> other days for the sake of, well, just in case something happens, then its
> a pain in the butt, but not a total disaster.
>
> These removable devices that are not tape based, how are they in terms of
> ease of portability and size. Well, I know they will not likely be cheap,
> but, well. Shoot sir.
>
> Thank you for your time and wisdom.
>
>
> in
> Director"
> very
> purpose
> of
> and
> have
> what
> is
> link
> link
> fire
> blocks
> reliable
> are
> tape
> functioning
> with
> in
> terms
> data
> our
> of
> who
> and

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Homer Simpson

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Why do you need whitepapers on the efficacy of tape backups? Isn't it
obvious that having an off-site tape backup is better than having no
off-site backup?

Here's my advice:

First, I'm the IT director for a company of about 1000 people. We have
approx 20 backups at any given time. My strategy is having an on-site
backup server located as far as possible from the server room (much like
your RAID 5 system in the basement) that keeps a full backup of everything
every day of the week (i.e. 7 full copies), plus weekly copies going back 6
weeks (6 more full copies). All of the daily backups are also copied to
tape and taken off-site (my house, actually).

The backup server is great for fast, random-access restores, but obviously
won't be useful if the building is destroyed. The tape backups are
periodically restored to an off-site server to (1) verify the tapes are
still working, and (2) provide off-site random-access to the data (albeit
an older copy) just in case.

Sure, tapes are not the most reliable backup medium ever invented, but
they're certainly not worthless. When disaster strikes, every little bit
helps, and it would be prudent to have a variety of choices to restore
from. Maybe your boss can see the logic in that? Keep the RAID 5 server
in the basement, but also keep off-site tapes or removable drives, etc...

Ron Reaugh

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

"Jolly Student" <jolly@joy.com> wrote in message
news:b4aBc.30581$V57.7728262@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Ron:
>
> Thank you for your words of wisdom. I personally like the fast no tape
> system but the bug up my butt is that we dont have anything off site.

The basement of a large building is significantly close to offsite save
Osama and gaint meteroid impact. Both those have significant requirements
in overall recovery strategy including the possibility that recovery may NOT
be feasible nor attempted.

> If
> you told me to get this or that and that its more reliable than tape, but
> that I can TAKE IT OFF SITE, I dont care if it looks like a barbie
lunchbox.
> . . sign me up.

You have to define 'offsite'.

> Do you have any info on credible removable SATA HDs in trays and good
> carrying cases for offsite backup.

Yep, I've implemented several such systems. KingWin KF-83 rack+tray+3 fans
~$30 with built in shock mounting. There's several padded carrying cases on
the market.

> Right now I have a pair of Imega 280gb
> fire wire drives that I am trying to use for the purpose, but they have
> their issues. I still like the convenience of tape on account of size,
but
> if you are telling me there is something more reliable than tape and that
> has the offsite features I am looking for, great, no sweat, I will do it.
>
> I fear that the director will, however, then have another excuse because I
> think the issue here is that he just wants to be right. My fear is
> protecting our organization from a major disaster and although I am being
> overly cautious, I really like the idea of taking a full backup home with
me
> on a Monday (after full backup on Sunday) and then the baby backups the
> other days for the sake of, well, just in case something happens, then its
a
> pain in the butt, but not a total disaster.

You are fretting about the basement by some definition not being offsite but
have you covered and considered all the other ways that you could lose it.
In the case of your business if the offices and basement are both totally
destroyed then what are the odds/chances that business recovery will even be
attempted?

> These removable devices that are not tape based, how are they in terms of
> ease of portability and size.

Quite reasonable and HDs are fast and tape drives are SLOW.

> Well, I know they will not likely be cheap,
> but, well. Shoot sir.

250GB SATA HD drive is about $200.

> in
> Director"
> very
to[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
> purpose
amount[vbcol=seagreen]
> of
> and
> have
drive[vbcol=seagreen]
Network[vbcol=seagreen]
> what
hitting[vbcol=seagreen]
another.[vbcol=seagreen]
offices[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
best[vbcol=seagreen]
> is
> link
> link
generally[vbcol=seagreen]
> fire
> blocks
> reliable
really,[vbcol=seagreen]
answer[vbcol=seagreen]
> are
> tape
a[vbcol=seagreen]
> functioning
pit,[vbcol=seagreen]
> with
have[vbcol=seagreen]
> in
> terms
I[vbcol=seagreen]
> data
> our
> of
> who
strategy[vbcol=seagreen]
over[vbcol=seagreen]
frequently[vbcol=seagreen]
> and
to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

Ron Reaugh

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

"Homer Simpson" <homer@simpsons.tv> wrote in message
news:10dbg83713ia525@corp.supernews.com...
> Why do you need whitepapers on the efficacy of tape backups? Isn't it
> obvious that having an off-site tape backup is better than having no
> off-site backup?

Don't try to imply that offsite and tape are the same thing. They are NOT!

> Here's my advice:
>
> First, I'm the IT director for a company of about 1000 people. We have
> approx 20 backups at any given time. My strategy is having an on-site
> backup server located as far as possible from the server room (much like
> your RAID 5 system in the basement) that keeps a full backup of everything
> every day of the week (i.e. 7 full copies), plus weekly copies going back
6
> weeks (6 more full copies). All of the daily backups are also copied to
> tape and taken off-site (my house, actually).

Not a professional location for a 1000 person company.

> The backup server is great for fast, random-access restores, but obviously
> won't be useful if the building is destroyed. The tape backups are
> periodically restored to an off-site server to (1) verify the tapes are
> still working, and (2) provide off-site random-access to the data (albeit
> an older copy) just in case.
>
> Sure, tapes are not the most reliable backup medium ever invented, but
> they're certainly not worthless. When disaster strikes, every little bit
> helps, and it would be prudent to have a variety of choices to restore
> from. Maybe your boss can see the logic in that? Keep the RAID 5 server
> in the basement, but also keep off-site tapes or removable drives, etc...

Do a real cost analysis and the a cost-risk-benefit analysis and very likely
you'll find that all that is mostly wasted effort and clearly old think.

Marc de Vries

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 06:24:07 GMT, "Jolly Student" <jolly@joy.com>
wrote:

>Ron:
>
>Thank you for your words of wisdom. I personally like the fast no tape
>system but the bug up my butt is that we dont have anything off site. If
>you told me to get this or that and that its more reliable than tape, but
>that I can TAKE IT OFF SITE, I dont care if it looks like a barbie lunchbox.
>. . sign me up.

Jolly Student:

It seems you are complaining about two different issues at the company
you work with.
1) The necessity to make backups
2) The necessity to bring backups off site.

1) Why you have to make backups is easy to defend. Viruses, a fire in
the serverroom etc, software failures.
Raid controllers only protect you against hardware failures, which is
only about 20% of all outage causes. Human error and software failures
cause all other outage, which you have to protect against with
backups. Don't tell me that nothing happened in your company that you
can't use as an example of what might happen to your server.

But as Ron also said, that doesn't necessarily mean you need tapes.
Just any kind of backup that is suitable in the environment.

2) The case for bringing tapes off site is more difficult to defend.

I would consider taking the backups home with you a serious security
issue. Those tapes contain important data that someone might want to
steal. I assume that your office is better protected against burglars
than your home?

So you need to hire a company to collect the tapes, which can put it
in a safe place (underground bunker or something like that)

The question then is:
How costly is that solution
vs
What does losing all data cost your company and how likely is that
going to happen?

For a company in a 2 story building, a strong safe which is fireproof
might be a perfectly valid on-site location for your backups.
(I know of a dutch university that had the building with their
serverroom burn down to the ground, but after two days they could
collect access the safe in the ruins of the building and do a restore
on new servers).

The chance of an airplane hitting that building/safe is so small that
they don't need off-site backups.

On the 98th floor the situation is of course different. But you
haven't mentioned the situation of your own server.

Directors only care about money.
So what you need to do is show him that using off-site backups is the
cheaper solution in the long run.
If you cannot do that, then your boss is right.
If you can do that he can defend the expense to his boss and will
implement an off-site stragey.

Unfortunately most IT people are very bad at judging/calculating cost
effectiveness of software and hardware.

Marc

J. Clarke

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Marc de Vries wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 06:24:07 GMT, "Jolly Student" <jolly@joy.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Jolly Student:
>
> It seems you are complaining about two different issues at the company
> you work with.
> 1) The necessity to make backups
> 2) The necessity to bring backups off site.
>
>
> 1) Why you have to make backups is easy to defend. Viruses, a fire in
> the serverroom etc, software failures.
> Raid controllers only protect you against hardware failures, which is
> only about 20% of all outage causes. Human error and software failures
> cause all other outage, which you have to protect against with
> backups. Don't tell me that nothing happened in your company that you
> can't use as an example of what might happen to your server.
>
> But as Ron also said, that doesn't necessarily mean you need tapes.
> Just any kind of backup that is suitable in the environment.
>
>
> 2) The case for bringing tapes off site is more difficult to defend.
>
> I would consider taking the backups home with you a serious security
> issue. Those tapes contain important data that someone might want to
> steal. I assume that your office is better protected against burglars
> than your home?

First, the seriousness of the risk of theft of the backup depends on the
circumstances. One company I worked for stored a huge (for the time)
volume of data, all of which had a cash value--if we sold all of it at the
going rate there was easily a million dollars worth of data on that little
tape--but _only_ if obtained from our company with appropriate signatures
and certifications, and with a tiny market for each particular item--there
might be three or four people in the entire world that had any use for it.
Further, everybody who had a use for any of it already had a copy--anybody
who had one was required by law to provide a copy to all interested
parties, but the only legally valid copies were the ones that we provided.
Thus the risk entailed by theft of the backup was nonexistent.

Second, the assumption that the office is "better protected against burglars
than your home" may be true for a defense contractor, but most small
businesses and many medium sized ones have no better security than many
residences. Certainly fewer people have the alarm code for my residence
than have the code for any business where I have been employed.

Third, if that's a real concern then encrypt the backup.

> So you need to hire a company to collect the tapes, which can put it
> in a safe place (underground bunker or something like that)

Or not, depending on the circumstances.

> The question then is:
> How costly is that solution
> vs
> What does losing all data cost your company and how likely is that
> going to happen?

The first question is "do you really need to store your daily backup in
someone's underground bunker?"

> For a company in a 2 story building, a strong safe which is fireproof
> might be a perfectly valid on-site location for your backups.
> (I know of a dutch university that had the building with their
> serverroom burn down to the ground, but after two days they could
> collect access the safe in the ruins of the building and do a restore
> on new servers).

They were fortunate. One must weigh the cost of that safe against the other
costs. A safe that can keep data storage media cool enough to remain
useful after a fire that destroys the building is not _cheap_. And given
that they were a university one would assume that they had other buildings
with safes in them, leaving one to wonder why they didn't store the backup
in a different building.

> The chance of an airplane hitting that building/safe is so small that
> they don't need off-site backups.

The chance of an airplane hitting the World Trade Center was vanishingly
small too. But that was just an example of a disaster of major
proportions. Fire, flood, earthquake, all kinds of major disasters can
happen, some natural, some man-made.

> On the 98th floor the situation is of course different. But you
> haven't mentioned the situation of your own server.
>
> Directors only care about money.

I don't think he was talking about a Director in the sense of "Board Of".

> So what you need to do is show him that using off-site backups is the
> cheaper solution in the long run.

Cheaper than what? Most businesses never file a claim with their insurance
company--for them going uninsured is the cheaper solution in the long run.
The trouble is that you can't tell in advance if you are going to be one of
the few who will actually have occasion to collect. Thus most businesses
are insured against a variety of low-probability eventualities. Backup is
the same way--for most businesses it ends up pure cost, never saves the
company a cent.

If you want to be really hardcore about it you could do some statistical
analysis that showed the probability of particular scenarios, the cost of
those scenarios, and the cost of backup strategies that prevent those
scenarios. Getting the data on which to base the analysis could be
difficult though.

> If you cannot do that, then your boss is right.
> If you can do that he can defend the expense to his boss and will
> implement an off-site stragey.
>
> Unfortunately most IT people are very bad at judging/calculating cost
> effectiveness of software and hardware.
>
> Marc

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

chrisv

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

"sTALe Watch" <ddn@sdadfon.net> wrote:

>Jolly Student, you and I are cut from the same mold.

Both top posters, too lazy to trim.

Paul Rubin

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Marc de Vries <marcdevries@geen.spam.zonnet.nl> writes:
> 2) The case for bringing tapes off site is more difficult to defend.
>
> I would consider taking the backups home with you a serious security
> issue. Those tapes contain important data that someone might want to
> steal. I assume that your office is better protected against burglars
> than your home?

That can be handled rather simply by encrypting the tapes. If someone
steals them without the decryption key, the data is inaccessible.

The parable/marketing blurb at http://www.taobackup.com is well worth
reading for anyone in the OP or his PHB's situation.

Midnight Java Junkie

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Oh cut the shit. . . give the guy a break. If his boss is too stupid to
realize that taking something as simple as an SDLT tape home every night for
a grand total cost of ten grand, give the guy a break - he is just trying to
to get some advice and trying to save a poor bunch of slobs the hours.

Top posters and too lazy to trim. Maybe to busy to trim and hope that others
dont pick on everything. . . maybe he worries more about important things,
like disaster recovery.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:lnudd0loh9qavo685r6mq2j5hg1fpa275q@
4ax.com...
> "sTALe Watch" <ddn@sdadfon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Both top posters, too lazy to trim.
>

mschlack

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<cb6gsn01sui@news2.newsguy.com>...

[vbcol=seagreen]
> If you want to be really hardcore about it you could do some statistical
> analysis that showed the probability of particular scenarios, the cost of
> those scenarios, and the cost of backup strategies that prevent those
> scenarios. Getting the data on which to base the analysis could be
> difficult though.
>

Believe it or not, backup options have really increased beyond the
usual. I work for a magazine about data storage and we are constantly
running articles on new options. It's free, if you want to see some of
the latest thinking: www.storagemagazine.com (you'll have to register,
but not to worry, no cost/spam involved).

From talking to many people working on this, both vendors and IT
people, I think you need to sort out a couple of things. You're
obviously on solid ground with the need for offsite -- your boss is
swimming way upstream on that. As other
posts have noted, your choice is really how often to offsite and in
what manner. Your RAID backup server will give you quick restore.
Assuming that you have somewhere some kind of images of the
applications and configurations for your servers, the next question is
how many minutes, hours, days worth of the data yoiur apps and users
generate can you live without
should your RAID 5 server be destroyed? That's how often you should
generate an offsite copy, it seems to me.

Your options for offsite are not just to take a tape home. There are
an increasing number of service options. There's trusty old, but
pricey, Iron
Mountain trucks. But there are also online offsite backup services,
which may actually prove cost-effective for you, depending on whether
the
volume of data you have makes online backup practical.

Lastly, it doesn't sound like you have any other office locations, but
a lot of people are looking at new ways to backup over the WAN using
IP.

One thing to clarify: do you have both restore and archive needs?
Restore would be to rebuild after a disaster or after losing or
corrupting specific files. Archive would be for
long term retention -- rarely used data that's taking up space
otherwise but would need to be occasionally mounted at some future
point (like parts drawings for obsolete products). If you're truly
archiving, then tape probably is a must (or optical), since the
reliability of data that's never read on disk drives can't be assumed
for many years (those little old bits can flip on you). SDLT is a
solid choice, in any event.

You'll find a lot of articles on the storagemagazine.com site about
this issue, written by people far smarter than me. Check out stuff by
W. Curtis Preston and James Damoulakis, in particular. These guys
really know their stuff and have worked with dozens of companies on
real installations. They don't have aol accounts either :-0.

The only suggestion I have for handling your boss is to suggest
disaster
recovery drills that include scenarios where your current method will
fail. Maybe walking through it will cause the light to go on.

Peter da Silva

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

In article <b12Bc.98622$Gx4.73313@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> best of all is in a granite mine on a different continent....well no best is
> in quantum entangled storage in another galaxy<g>.

Your quantum entangled storage in another galaxy is no safer that wherever
you have the nearside qubits stored. There is no magic bullet, not even if
you invoke Arthur C. Clarke magic.

--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`

Ron Reaugh

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

"mschlack" <mschlack@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:95fd698a.0406220632.126f2fd5@posting.google.com...

-snip

> One thing to clarify: do you have both restore and archive needs?
> Restore would be to rebuild after a disaster or after losing or
> corrupting specific files. Archive would be for
> long term retention -- rarely used data that's taking up space
> otherwise but would need to be occasionally mounted at some future
> point (like parts drawings for obsolete products). If you're truly
> archiving, then tape probably is a must (or optical), since the
> reliability of data that's never read on disk drives can't be assumed
> for many years (those little old bits can flip on you). SDLT is a
> solid choice, in any event.

Tapes are NOT for long term storage. Only some opticals have been legally
approved.

Craig Ruff

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

In article <gI0Cc.116580$Gx4.98918@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Tapes are NOT for long term storage. Only some opticals have been legally
>approved.

That depends on your application and environment, legal requirements may not
be a factor. We had 3480/3490 tapes that stored data in our archive that
had very few read errors after 15 years of storage and use. Of course,
they were kept in the climate controlled computer room for their entire
life time. It is common to be able to read 1/2" reel-to-reel tapes that
are 40 years old without too many problems as long they were stored in
reasonable climate conditions.

Now, however, with the increasing recording density of recent tape
media formats, it may not be possible to get that kind of lifetime.
Oozing of data to newer tape (or other storage) technologies may be
necessary after 5-8 years. Personally, I'd prefer to trust linear
recording formats over helical scan formats any day.

NCAR has an archive that is approaching 2 PB (petabytes), all of
it on tape. I suspect there are organizations with much more data on
tape.
--

Craig Ruff NCAR cruff@ucar.edu
(303) 497-1211 P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80307

Jerry Peters

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Craig Ruff <cruff@ucar.edu> wrote:
> In article <gI0Cc.116580$Gx4.98918@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> That depends on your application and environment, legal requirements may not
> be a factor. We had 3480/3490 tapes that stored data in our archive that
> had very few read errors after 15 years of storage and use. Of course,
> they were kept in the climate controlled computer room for their entire
> life time. It is common to be able to read 1/2" reel-to-reel tapes that
> are 40 years old without too many problems as long they were stored in
> reasonable climate conditions.
>
> Now, however, with the increasing recording density of recent tape
> media formats, it may not be possible to get that kind of lifetime.
> Oozing of data to newer tape (or other storage) technologies may be
> necessary after 5-8 years. Personally, I'd prefer to trust linear
> recording formats over helical scan formats any day.
>
> NCAR has an archive that is approaching 2 PB (petabytes), all of
> it on tape. I suspect there are organizations with much more data on
> tape.
Yes, in the early 90's the large company I worked for converted all of
the hundreds or thousands of history tapes from reel to 3480
cartridge. IIRC all of the tapes, some 10 years old or more, were
readable.
We also performed a yearly disaster recovery test wherein we would go
to a recovery center for 3 days and restore our IBM mainframe system
from 3480's. We'd have our entire disaster library shipped across the
state by truck to the recovery site. We never had any problems reading
the backup tapes.

Jerry

Scott

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

Keep working there as long as you get the personal advancement you
need to stay happy.
Wait for them to have a problem that the current backup solution
cannot handle.
Make sure you have your own way to recover everything.
When disaster occurs quit...
Offer to come back as a consultant at 3X your current pay rate to
oslve their problem.

Scott

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:33:16 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Tapes are NOT for long term storage. Only some opticals have been legally
>approved.
>

Legally approved by what organizations?

Here are the methods of archival storage for a couple of the US's
largest data gathers:
Library of Congress
National Oceanographic Data Center

Of course, the Census Bureau has learned their lesson the hard way.
Due to the high costs of migrating digital data over time they are now
moving back to microfilm:
<http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/200...us-01-09-01.asp>

---

Here is the solution used by the US Library of Congress:
<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may96/loc/...s.html#preserve>
"To address the estimated need for 50 terabytes of managed storage by
the year 2000, the Library will be installing a commercial
hierarchical storage management system over the coming months. Storage
management software will transfer files automatically between high-
performance disk drives and less expensive storage media from which
retrieval will take longer. Typically, the location is based on time
since last access, but more complex rules can be enforced. Since the
highest resolution images will be accessed only occasionally, they
will usually be resident on the slower medium. The allocation is
transparent to applications accessing the files; "stub" files left in
the logical file hierarchy point to the physical location of files
that have been relegated to another "layer" of storage. For its second
layer of storage, the Library has chosen high capacity magnetic tape
cartridges under robotic control.

The tape unit (IBM's 3494 Tape Library Dataserver) has been installed
and is already in use for regular backup and restore operations
(associated with any computer system). Generation (and periodic
regeneration) of archival copies of collections on tape cartridges is
also possible for preservation of the digital materials. The
hierarchical storage management software (ADSM from IBM) will be
installed on individual computers over the next few months, in
conjunction with system upgrades. "

--

Here is the method used by the US National Oceanographic Data Center

<http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/NO...ive_access.html>

"NODC currently operates a number of Digital Linear Tape (DLT) and IBM
3590 tape media systems for backup and archive and for off-line
storage. NODC operates automated systems to perform regular virus
scans of data in storage both during ingest and periodically
thereafter, and also to generate cryptographic checksums of all
digital archive data so that its integrity can be verified at any
time. This allows for a high degree of confidence that any data
corruption due to media failure or accidental or intentional
destruction can be easily detected so data can be recovered from
off-line backup media. It also allows for data migration across future
generations of storage media and systems with a high degree of
confidence in the inherent data integrity.

NODC also operates a number of high-capacity RAID (Redundant Array of
Inexpensive Disks) disk storage systems to support data ingest,
working storage, online products and database search and retrieval
systems.

Tape jukebox systems are maintained at NODC to provide automated and
manual backup facilities supporting the NODC workstations and servers
as well as near-line mass storage jukeboxes (the backup copy results
in a third copy of the original data). These systems currently use DLT
technology and run under the control of Legato Networker backup
software. Tape media systems are maintained to support data retrieval
from legacy tape formats such as 9-track, and to copy data to IBM 3590
tape media for offsite, deep-storage archive. Other tape systems are
provided for backup and restoration of database and critical data and
information servers."

--

And the method for the

Faeandar

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:11:33 -0700, Scott <spam784@spam.spam> wrote:

>Keep working there as long as you get the personal advancement you
>need to stay happy.
>Wait for them to have a problem that the current backup solution
>cannot handle.
>Make sure you have your own way to recover everything.
>When disaster occurs quit...
>Offer to come back as a consultant at 3X your current pay rate to
>oslve their problem.
>

Hmm, that's good advice.

~F

Ron Reaugh

2004-06-26, 2:26 pm

"Scott" <spam784@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:usekd0tpevd0541r4qaos4uj2qp412r17i@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:33:16 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
> <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
legally[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Legally approved by what organizations?

Tax data etc....the last time I checked only some kinds of optical were
approved.

Marc de Vries

2004-06-28, 8:35 am

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:45:39 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Scott" <spam784@spam.spam> wrote in message
> news:usekd0tpevd0541r4qaos4uj2qp412r17i@
4ax.com...
>legally
>
>Tax data etc....the last time I checked only some kinds of optical were
>approved.

Correct. For Europe there are only two systems (both optical) that are
approved for tax data.

That means, that only those systems are allowed when that system is
the ONLY place where the data is stored.

If the data is ALSO still stored on harddisk, then a tape backup is
enough.

Suprisingly almost nobody seems to know about these regulations. There
are lots of financial organizations that use archive media which are
not legally approved. (like CDROM)

Marc

Malcolm Weir

2004-07-02, 8:47 pm

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:14:47 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

[ Snip ]

>
>Tapes have NEVER been considered a viable "long term archiving" medium.

Neither, though, has anything else, except for paper.

Tape is, and has been proven to be, better than most things, and
particularly better than disk whose failure modes tend to result in
massive data inaccessibility more often than those of tape.

However, this issue is not tape-vs-anything else, it's on-line and
on-site vs. off-line and off-site.

[ Snip ]

>Reliability is always the sum of all such factors and any backup strategy
>should look more towards the least common denominator...Murphy....an
>automatic corrollary to Murphiy's law is that tapes are unrelaible. The
>proof of that is the incredible cycle strategies that have developed over
>the years for tape backups. That comes from the fact that too frequently
>the tape isn't usable for any one of a number of reasons.

Substitute "backup medium" for tape and there would be something
useful in the above...

Malc.

Malcolm Weir

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:33:16 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"mschlack" <mschlack@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:95fd698a.0406220632.126f2fd5@posting.google.com...
>
>-snip
>
>
>Tapes are NOT for long term storage. Only some opticals have been legally
>approved.

Errr... false.

Ron is mangling the fact that for archive purposes, the physical
characteristics of WORM opticals have resulted in that media being
approved as a tamper-proof archive.

But tape has been approved by people like the National Media Lab for
long-term storage.

Malc.

Ron Reaugh

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
news:klg9e095eq1k2adsl8jojitlkvt1nlr1d9@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:14:47 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
> <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [ Snip ]
>
of[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Neither, though, has anything else, except for paper.

No, some opticals.

> Tape is, and has been proven to be, better than most things, and
> particularly better than disk whose failure modes tend to result in
> massive data inaccessibility more often than those of tape.
>
> However, this issue is not tape-vs-anything else, it's on-line and
> on-site vs. off-line and off-site.

Not these days as on-line and off-site is becoming viable.

Hey what about off-line and on-site...there must be a market for that or is
that called DAT.

> [ Snip ]
>
>
> Substitute "backup medium" for tape and there would be something
> useful in the above...

Nope, I got it right with "tape".

Malcolm Weir

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 02:19:19 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
> news:klg9e095eq1k2adsl8jojitlkvt1nlr1d9@
4ax.com...
>of
>
>No, some opticals.

Nope. While the media may be (relatively) stable, the mechanisms to
process that media is the problem! How many 12-inch WORM drives do
you have?

>
>Not these days as on-line and off-site is becoming viable.

It's been "viable" for decades, for some value of "viable".

>Hey what about off-line and on-site...there must be a market for that or is
>that called DAT.

Off-line, on-site is a typical tape archive.

>
>Nope, I got it right with "tape".

If you had much of a clue (which is debatable), you'd understand that
*any* backup medium is inherently "unreliable", in the sense that it
can (and does) fail. All you are trying to argue is that one subtype
of medium is intrinsically worse than others, which is obviously
nonsense given the different possible implementations of that subtype.

For example, no-one with any integrity would claim that, say, Zip
disks were a "reliable" media, but it takes a certain amount of
ignorance to extrapolate from that data point to the conclusion that
removable disks are unreliable (which is what you've done with tape).

Add to the mix the issue of undiscovered problems, and you are
*beginning* to touch on why we have complex backup medium strategies.

Malc.

Ron Reaugh

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
news:o2h9e053ucorlt4h8o9af1b1nc28430id0@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:33:16 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
> <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
legally[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Errr... false.
>
> Ron is mangling the fact that for archive purposes, the physical
> characteristics of WORM opticals have resulted in that media being
> approved as a tamper-proof archive.

Nonsense as anyone who reads this whole thread can see for themselves. TDK
says that their CD-R are good for over 50 years.

> But tape has been approved by people like the National Media Lab for
> long-term storage.

Wacko, they have nothing to do with the government but are a tape
manufacturer. Also I notice that their controversial pages on media lifetime
aren't on their website any longer.

Ron Reaugh

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message

> Off-line, on-site is a typical tape archive.

On that we agree with the thread title.

Boll Weevil

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

On 18 Jun 2004 16:33:22 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>
>My take on this is _nothing_ is reliable (as in never screws up).
>(cite: Rules, by Murphy)
>

Yea.. so what? We'll all die too.

Boll Weevil

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:22:31 GMT, "Jolly Student" <jolly@joy.com>
wrote:

>Okay Folks:
>
>........................
>I work for a mid-sized company (600 employees) whose "Technology Director"
>has openly said that "Tape backups are not reliable". This director had a
>"consultant" come in to back up his assertion, a consultant who asked to
>check his email via his "AOL" account (indeed, his email address is
>something like Iconsult_For_Companies@aol.com).
>
>......................
>
>Roger.
>

Roger,

Most reasonable storage architects realize that tape is a part of a
whole storage solution. Just because your compaly bought a swiss-army
knife doesn't mean that the knife is gonna meet all your company's
needs. You seem to sense it but there will be expectations of that
RAID box which it will not be able to meet and that time will come
sooner and not later. That RAID5 box will get used up quicker than
you'll think. Think of a carpenter, he has all the power tools but he
still has his old handy dandy hammer.

If your storage capacity is even enough for a few years, it won't meet
the storage needs of what you think now, later. Your manager will
eventually have to step up to this blunder when a huge litigation or
the IRS pops up and demands data from six years back. Can you imagine
the management head ache of six years of data on one RAID box even if
it could hold that much? I'd say you may be livin easy now but you
and your manager are lookin at a major XXX kicking later on. Your
manager will get fired and you will have to fix that problem later if
you don't get fired too.

I'd try to nip that in the bud, now! Go talk to a reputable storage
architect and get the real skinny on backup and disaster recovery.
Also, research your state's corporate data retention policy and the
IRS. By law, there a lot of data companies are expected keep and
retain for a certain period of time such as email, HR, accounting and
more. Use this as your justification against a pure disk backup.

Boll Weevil

Boll Weevil

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:19:38 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Start looking for another job and soak up the sun while you can.
>These guys are going to eat it sooner or later and if you're still
>around you will take the blame, somehow someway.
>Even if you have a dated e-mail showing your recommendations and how
>this course of action will lead to the company going under.
>
>Sell any stock you have and get the hell out.
>
>But to address your question:
>I don't know of any white papers that are written for someone so
>idiotic. All I've seen assume you actually want to recover from a
>disaster. And most of those assume you some semblance of
>understanding when it comes to reliability and recoverability.
>
>If "the director" looks at you like a bug when you try to explain what
>will happen in the event of a plane/earthquake/virus then you've
>already lost. Unless you can get the ear of someone further up you're
>screwed.
>
>Good luck on that, I'd be interested to hear how it pans out.
>
>~F

I totally agree with Faeandar. If you haven't already done so,
document all your recommendations now especially if you plan to keep
your job. That director of IT will be comin to kick some XXX and at
least you can defend yourself.

Boll Weevil

J. Clarke

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

Malcolm Weir wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:14:47 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
> <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [ Snip ]
>
>
> Neither, though, has anything else, except for paper.

Papyrus, clay tablets, engraved gold, and chiseled stone also have track
records.

> Tape is, and has been proven to be, better than most things, and
> particularly better than disk whose failure modes tend to result in
> massive data inaccessibility more often than those of tape.
>
> However, this issue is not tape-vs-anything else, it's on-line and
> on-site vs. off-line and off-site.
>
> [ Snip ]
>
>
> Substitute "backup medium" for tape and there would be something
> useful in the above...
>
> Malc.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Malcolm Weir

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 03:44:10 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
> news:o2h9e053ucorlt4h8o9af1b1nc28430id0@
4ax.com...
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Nonsense as anyone who reads this whole thread can see for themselves. TDK
>says that their CD-R are good for over 50 years.

Poor Ron, he gets so confused! One might assume, from reading the
above, that TDK's CD-Rs had been "legally approved"!

Which is, of course, false.

>
>Wacko, they have nothing to do with the government

Errr... the US Government provided the funding for them, under the
National Technology Alliance program, which was a DoD/CIA think (which
became a NIMA thing, and is now a NGA thing, but all the players
remained the same, just the acronyms changed).

>but are a tape manufacturer.

And TDK *isn't* a CD-ROM manufacturer????

So Ron would have us believe that TDK's claim that their CD-Rs are
"good for over 50 years" is somehow valid, and the claims of the
government-funded NML research managed by 3M/Imation are not.

Hmmm...

Still, anyone who believes that CD-R is magically stable (despite
being dye-based) while magnetic tape isn't stable has fundamentally
failed to understand the issues involved. Neither are stable... but
both can be made pretty darn good *if* you treat them right!

>Also I notice that their controversial pages on media lifetime
>aren't on their website any longer.

The NTA restructured about 2 or 3 years ago, with the NML, the NCAT,
and whatever-it-was-called-at-Sarnoff (NIDL, I think) being rolled up
into a new entity managed by a single corporation (as opposed to three
separate management contracts).

So the government-funded NML ceased to exist at that time. But their
research hasn't gone away, even though their funding source has.

Sorry, Ron, you'll have to get a clue!

Malc.

Malcolm Weir

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 03:47:08 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
>
>
>On that we agree with the thread title.

Yet sadly for your bias, there is a difference between archive and
backup (i.e. you are confused) and your contention that there is such
a thing as a "reliable" backup *or* archive is laughable!

In the real world (i.e. the place you don't inhabit, Ron), _nothing_
is "reliable", it's all varying degrees of unreliability.

And *some* tapes are more reliable than *some* optical, and *some*
magnetic disk solutions are more reliable than *some* tapes.

But only a fool would conclude that *all* tape is more reliable than
*all* disk.

Hi Ron.

Malc.

Peter da Silva

2004-07-02, 8:48 pm

In article <eS4Fc.175234$Gx4.115969@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
> news:o2h9e053ucorlt4h8o9af1b1nc28430id0@
4ax.com...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Nonsense as anyone who reads this whole thread can see for themselves. TDK
> says that their CD-R are good for over 50 years.

That statement does not contradict Malcolm's.

--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`

chrisv

2004-07-09, 5:45 pm

Malcolm Weir <malc@gelt.org> wrote:

>"Rod Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>Poor Ron, he gets so confused! One might assume, from reading the
>above, that TDK's CD-Rs had been "legally approved"!
>
>Which is, of course, false.
>
>
>Errr... the US Government provided the funding for them, under the
>National Technology Alliance program, which was a DoD/CIA think (which
>became a NIMA thing, and is now a NGA thing, but all the players
>remained the same, just the acronyms changed).
>
>
>And TDK *isn't* a CD-ROM manufacturer????
>
>So Ron would have us believe that TDK's claim that their CD-Rs are
>"good for over 50 years" is somehow valid, and the claims of the
>government-funded NML research managed by 3M/Imation are not.
>
>Hmmm...

This is like four separate issues, in just the last few days, in which
Ronnie has completely embarrassed himself.

>Still, anyone who believes that CD-R is magically stable (despite
>being dye-based) while magnetic tape isn't stable has fundamentally
>failed to understand the issues involved. Neither are stable... but
>both can be made pretty darn good *if* you treat them right!
>
>
>The NTA restructured about 2 or 3 years ago, with the NML, the NCAT,
>and whatever-it-was-called-at-Sarnoff (NIDL, I think) being rolled up
>into a new entity managed by a single corporation (as opposed to three
>separate management contracts).
>
>So the government-funded NML ceased to exist at that time. But their
>research hasn't gone away, even though their funding source has.
>
>Sorry, Ron, you'll have to get a clue!

Don't hold your breath. Rod^Hn's an idiot.

Carl Farrington

2004-07-09, 5:45 pm

Malcolm Weir wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 02:19:19 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
> <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Nope. While the media may be (relatively) stable, the mechanisms to
> process that media is the problem! How many 12-inch WORM drives do
> you have?
>
>
> It's been "viable" for decades, for some value of "viable".
>
>
> Off-line, on-site is a typical tape archive.
>
>
> If you had much of a clue (which is debatable), you'd understand that
> *any* backup medium is inherently "unreliable", in the sense that it
> can (and does) fail. All you are trying to argue is that one subtype
> of medium is intrinsically worse than others, which is obviously
> nonsense given the different possible implementations of that subtype.
>
> For example, no-one with any integrity would claim that, say, Zip
> disks were a "reliable" media, but it takes a certain amount of
> ignorance to extrapolate from that data point to the conclusion that
> removable disks are unreliable (which is what you've done with tape).
>
> Add to the mix the issue of undiscovered problems, and you are
> *beginning* to touch on why we have complex backup medium strategies.
>

Here here. Well said!

Carl Farrington

2004-07-09, 5:45 pm

Ron Reaugh wrote:
> "Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
> news:o2h9e053ucorlt4h8o9af1b1nc28430id0@
4ax.com...
>
> Nonsense as anyone who reads this whole thread can see for
> themselves. TDK says that their CD-R are good for over 50 years.

So that means they have been "legally approved" ?

Ron Reaugh

2004-07-09, 5:45 pm

"Carl Farrington" <carl@000compsup000.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:cck9lr$oe6$1$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
> So that means they have been "legally approved" ?

Nope, as I said before only some opticals(worms I think) have been
approved.

Malcolm Weir

2004-07-09, 5:45 pm

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 20:31:05 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>Nope, as I said before only some opticals(worms I think) have been
>approved.

I.e. Ronny has mangled the fact that for archive purposes (etc.)

Ronny has problems largely resulting from his (low-end) view of the
industry. He would have no clue how to manage a petabyte archive, but
that doesn't prevent him from making definitive statements on the
matter.

Nor does it prevent him from aggressively applying double standards,
e.g. by citing TDK as an authority for their own products while
simultaneously dismissing the government funded research of the NML on
the basis that the NML was managed and run by 3M/Imation.

Malc.

Anton Rang

2004-07-12, 8:45 pm

Malcolm Weir <malc@gelt.org> writes:
>
> Nor does it prevent him from aggressively applying double standards,
> e.g. by citing TDK as an authority for their own products while
> simultaneously dismissing the government funded research of the NML on
> the basis that the NML was managed and run by 3M/Imation.

.... who, for what it's worth (not much), have produced not only tape media,
but magneto-optical and various CD/CD-R media over the years.

Anyway, Ron remains unwilling to listen & unable to understand.

-- Anton