As an individual: I am not using tape. My laptop is backed up to a Maxtor drive and my home Mac is backed up to an external LaCie drive.
My business: My network server, wiki content, shared org data, etc. is stored on disk and backed up to tape.
Our customers: Use tape as a storage tier for their data protection and archive needs. They pay us close to a couple billion a year for our tape products and services; and about 11 exabytes of data is sitting on Sun StorageTek tape.
To add – I do think the new Dell RD1000 is pretty darn cool, I may even look at it for individual use. But if you were to store the above mentioned 11 exabytes on 240GB cartridges at $199.99 – it would cost you $9.2B…]]>
Really interesting analogy. I hadn’t thought of it that way before.]]>
Disk is the new tape, and tape is the new microfiche.]]>
As I work for a storage vendor that sells tape (and disk), I obviously think it is here to stay. As you state, the first time I heard of the “Tape is Dead” argument was in 1987!
I’d like someone to ask Marc how much power, cooling and footprint cost it would take to store 1PB of data on his Dell EqualLogic disk arrays. Then compare that to a tape system or mixed disk/tape system. He’ll quickly find his answer in this comparison. (After all, data sitting on tape consumes 0 power and generates 0 heat) Tape has always been about the economic and removability benefits.
What’s amusing about the “Tape is dead” argument is that it is always brought up by people who only sell disk systems. I wonder why that is?
I think you’ll hear most systems vendors say that disk is good for more and more applications and tape is good for others – and that the disk/tape mix is changing over time. That’s why the storage leaders still invest extensively in tape – IBM, HP and Sun. EMC even “caved in” to customer pressure and started OEMing tape.
So, maybe he should change his blog title from “Is tape dead?” to another disk vendor “beating a dead horse.”]]>