Well, tape is actually NOT cheaper unless you do it in a REALLY big way with tape libraries and robots.
Yes, that's what I was talking about. When I compare the economics of storage technologies, I think of large scale storage. With tape, there are thousands of cartridges and plenty of robots.
Even then it's only marginally cheaper than HDs.The last figures I saw were 5x cheaper. That's total cost (not just e.g. purchase price of some box), and assuming a tape-friendly application. That seems perfectly believable to me, but if you know of a study showing otherwise, do tell.
So think about it - would you build a tape library with expensive robots and lots of tape or would you just prefer to buy somewhat slower hard drives?
I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Shingled disks aren't somewhat slower. Used right, they're the same speed as regular drives; used wrong, they're unusably slow. Since tape applications also work on shingled drives, the question would be, would you use something with 2 minute access time or just use slightly more expensive disk drives. Only since I'm claiming shingled drives are 4X more expensive than tape, that question is moot.
By the way, some of my data is on tape. My company backs up its general purpose filesystem to tape. It takes me 4 minutes to recover a lost file - 2 minutes to go through the interactive dialog and 2 minutes for the robots and tape drives to do their thing. Shingled disk would cut that to 2 minutes total. I can't imagine my company switching unless there is virtually no difference in the storage cost.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds