[Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets)

[patrick]

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

>On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 22:43 -0400, Carter Manucy wrote:
>  
>
>>Just a couple of nit-picks here:
>>  ...  
>>LTO is only 1-generation fully (read/write) backward-compatible,
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, I was aware of this, but thanx for pointing it out.
>LTO-2 drives can write LTO-1, but LTO-3 can't.
>
>  
>
>>and 2 generations read-only compatible...
>>    
>>
>
>Huh?  Now that's news to me.  I guess it's hard to say anything for sure
>at this point, because only LTO-3 is out and it reads back to LTO-1.
>
>Now I've been following LTO since near inception, but maybe they have
>changed their standards/promises as a result of product developments.  I
>guess I should read the LTO site since it's been awhile.
>
>  
>
>>eg, you can read/write to an LTO-2 
>>or LTO-3 tape in an LTO-3 drive, but not only read an LTO-1.  LTO-4 
>>wouldn't be able to read LTO-1.
>>From http://www.lto.org/newsite/html/about_faqs.html
>>*Q12: What are the backward compatibility characteristics of the Ultrium 
>>format?*
>>A12: The LTO Ultrium compatibility is defined with two concepts 
>>demonstrating investment protection:
>>1) An Ultrium drive is expected to read data from a cartridge in its own 
>>generation and at least the two prior generations.
>>    
>>
>
>Interesting.  Okay, I guess that's changed since the original standard. 
>Thanx for that update!  Again, I guess I should have read the LTO site
>since it's been awhile -- I'm basing my statements on the original
>standard/promises plan.
>
>The original LTO standard was to be 4 generations -- with any newer
>generation being able to read any older, but only write 1 generation
>back.  Again, actual developments have changed the standards/promises,
>especially with LTO-4 in development.
>
>  
>
>>2) An Ultrium drive is expected to write data to a cartridge in its own 
>>generation and to a cartridge from the immediate prior generation in the 
>>prior generation format.
>>Also, you'd mentioned:
>>There is actually a planned Gen 5 and Gen 6 now (1.6TB/360MBps and 
>>3.2TB/540MBps, respectively)
>>    
>>
>
>Okay, now this makes more sense.  I assume:  
>
>1.  They've run into some issues reading LTO-1 with the LTO-4
>prototypes, and
>
>2.  They've decided with the success and vendor support of LTO to
>continue with a 5th and 6th generation, hence
>
>3.  The new clarification on how many generations back can be read.
>
>Hmmm, from a longevity standpoint, this is a bit disturbing.  If they've
>clarified this because they are, indeed, having issues with LTO-4
>reading LTO-1 -- and there are 5th and 6th generations, then it makes
>you wonder if you should start with LTO-1.
>
>I had always recommended LTO-1 because I had believed (from the original
>design) that it would be always readable by the terminal generation
>(e.g., LTO-4) as in the original plan.  I guess this is no longer the
>case so I have to re-evaluate that recommendation.
>
>Thanx for the update Carter!  In any case, I need to blog this.
>
>
>  
>
A funny thing... all your messages, Bryan, come to me with funny 
characters in the header.  I am running Mozilla Thunderbird, in Kubuntu 
Breezy 5.10, loaded fresh today, but, was the same on another of my AMD 
Duron computers, yesterday... 

So, my fonts are interpreting something with an incorrect font 
character? It only inserts one or two alternate characters, usually in 
the spaces in the Subject area on the download list in my T Bird, never 
in the actual reader area...

Funny thing, indeed, it seems to happen with only a couple folks, 
besides you.  Both on the Leaplists, and the PC Support list.

Can you shed some light, please?  What can I do to get my fonts to read 
right?

Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060618/7e76a635/attachment.html