There are many applications for which tape storage is practical. We know this because people are doing it.
Many of the applications that could tolerate shingled disk could also tolerate tape.
Density per tape cartridge isn't really the point. Cost is the point, and tape is cheaper per terabyte than shingled disk. Part of the reason for that is the storage density per tape drive is far, far greater than for disk drives. Data rate per drive is much greater too.
I don't think I would be amazed at the number of applications that are appropriate for shingled disk, but I also know that there are a lot of applications that aren't, and there are significant storage management costs in using different kinds of disk drives for different kinds of data. I suspect one would need more than a 20% differential in per-terabyte cost to justify that.
Even better, it's possible to use faster hard drives (or even SSDs) as a frontend for the slow shingled disks.
That's the bending over backwards I was talking about that I doubt is worth it for a 20% improvement. Have we ever seen people make such a disruptive transition for 20%? Would people have gone from floppy disks to CD-ROM for 20%? Or CD-ROM to DVD? Would people even have gzipped tar files for only 20%?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds