[comp.sys.dec] 8mm or 4mm?

mckay@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Dwight D. Mckay) (06/19/91)

Our 8mm tape drive has once again died.  Twice in two years.

Since we are starting to handle a sizable amout of data created by the
X-ray instruments here, I'm considering adding a second drive.

Should I add another exabyte (8mm) or start switching over to DAT (4mm)?

As I understand it the *big* differences are:

- Ignoring compression, 8mm has greater capacity then 4mm.
- 4mm is faster on "seeking" files

Suggestions?  Comments from owners of 4mm or 8mm drives?

BTW: This drive would be attached a VMS machine and used remotely via
Multinet from UNIX machines.

--Dwight D. McKay, Purdue University, Department of Biological Sciences
--Office: LILY B-145, Phone: (317) 494-4481
--mckay@gimli.bio.purdue.edu

brack@agrajag.yorku.ca (Tony Brack) (06/26/91)

In article <13753@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, mckay@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Dwight D. Mckay) writes:
>> Our 8mm tape drive has once again died.  Twice in two years.
>> 
>> Since we are starting to handle a sizable amout of data created by the
>> X-ray instruments here, I'm considering adding a second drive.
>> 
>> Should I add another exabyte (8mm) or start switching over to DAT (4mm)?

This involves your own personal preference... We have both here, mainly
because we are concerned with being able to read from both media. The
down side of this is you would have 2 single points of failure. The plus
side is you can read/write both media types...

Don't expect TONS of better reliability with the 4mm drives. SONY's
have caused us grief on DEC/Mips offerings, largely due to ROM bugs
and the like. Archive drives seem to work rather flawlessly, and are
*much* cheaper... at least by our experience.

>> As I understand it the *big* differences are:
>> 
>> - Ignoring compression, 8mm has greater capacity then 4mm.
>> - 4mm is faster on "seeking" files
>> 
>> Suggestions?  Comments from owners of 4mm or 8mm drives?

8mm drives have capacities of 2.3 or 5 GB depending on whether or not
data compression is on, whereas DAT capacity is 1.2 & 2.0 GB respectively.
One interesting device we use which is relatively cheap is DILOG's DAT
stacker. It is about half-again the price of a SONY DAT, and allows you
to serially run through 8 cartridges. Again, the down side is the SONY
transport used internally. (No ROM problems on VAXen yet...ed)

If you'd like numbers, we have 5 stackers backing up about 10GB apiece
for full backups on weekends unattended.

>> BTW: This drive would be attached a VMS machine and used remotely via
>> Multinet from UNIX machines.

Let me know how & if you get this working! We tried and it didn't under
MultiNET V2.1. Too many problems with VMS unloading the tape drive after
rdump (rmt) exited. In particular it would be nice to pay attention to
tape labels, something VMS does poorly, but UNIX makes no attempt to do
in any way shape or form.. (a little stab here). Seriously, though, I
haven't checked if MultiNET 3.0 rmt is better documented than its
predecessor was... it may be worth giving another stab!

>> --Dwight D. McKay, Purdue University, Department of Biological Sciences
>> --Office: LILY B-145, Phone: (317) 494-4481
>> --mckay@gimli.bio.purdue.edu

-- 
 Tony Brack                          ][ Usenet: ......!utzoo!yunexus!brack 
 VMS & UNIX Technical Support	     ][         brack@outland.yorku.ca
 Computing & Communications Services ][ Bitnet: brack@yulibra
 York University.                    ][  Voice: (416) 736-2100 x22687
 4700 Keele St.                      ||
 North York, Ontario M3J 1P3	     ||

        What's this coming up...           
	... sure hope it's friendly!

de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (06/26/91)

In article <1991Jun25.181021.7508@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>, brack@agrajag.yorku.ca (Tony Brack) writes:
>
>8mm drives have capacities of 2.3 or 5 GB depending on whether or not
>data compression is on, whereas DAT capacity is 1.2 & 2.0 GB respectively.

Are you *sure* the EXB-8500 does compression?  I thought it was just a
higher density recording.  If it does use compression, then one would
expect the capacity to be significantly less than 5 GB when storing
previously compressed files, but none of the literature I've seen has
said anything about the capacity being variable.  Anyone have a
definitive answer?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	  Tug on anything in nature and you will find
Martin Marietta Energy Systems    it connected to everything else.
Workstation Support                                             --John Muir

jayl@bit.UUCP (Jay Lessert) (06/27/91)

In article <1991Jun26.120606.14138@cs.utk.edu> Dave Sill <de5@ornl.gov> writes:
>Are you *sure* the EXB-8500 does compression?  I thought it was just a

We're getting ready to buy some EXB-8500's and have done the requisite
market surveys, etc.

The EXB-8500 uses improved head technology to write double the effective
density ("two tracks", according to the Exabyte sales rep) and is truly
5GB, no compression.  5GB tapes written on an 8500 cannot be read by an
8200 (sorta like QIC150/QIC24), but 2.3GB tapes can be read by an 8500 with
up-to-date firmware.

In addition, a compression module is available for the 8500 (don't know if
it's actually the same compression HW as the 8200) which gets you to 10GB
(average), or so.  Or 25GB if you work for Exabyte Marketing! :-)

-- 
Jay Lessert  {decwrl,cse.ogi.edu,sun,verdix}!bit!jayl
Bipolar Integrated Technology, Inc.
503-629-5490  (fax)503-690-1498