Object storage suppliers tend to look at tape storage like a real ale fan looks at cheap fizzy lager: "I'm not going to touch that!" Object storage suppliers such as Caringo, Cleversafe, HDS, ByCast (NetApp), Scality and others boast that their technology is self-healing and more scalable than file-system-based approaches. …
Tuesday 20th March 2012 11:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
It depends what you want to do, at my last company I worked as data protection tech lead, we used Symantec's Enterprise Vault, sometimes to tape, sometimes to EMC Centera. If we were archiving loads of data which would likely never be requested back - such as telephone calls - but had to be stored for regulatory compliance, it's tape every time. If we were storing data which would be actively searched and recalled on a day to day basis - such as emails - it would go onto spinning storage.
It's not as simple as disk good/tape bad or as simple as cheap good/expensive bad, it's what you need to achieve. There is no point in putting a cheap reliable solution in place, if it doesn't begin to meet the users' requirements. Likewise why would you wast the company's money by putting an expensive all singing and dancing solution in place, when it'll barely be used by anyone?
Wednesday 21st March 2012 02:02 GMT Wunderbar1
True, tape is less than optimal for speed, recoverability assurance, basically everything, but it is really cheap. If you are storing something that people will want to look at again but not very often, such as archived e-mail, cheap disk is probably the way to go. If you are storing something that, barring a very unusual event such as a compliance audit, people will almost certainly not want to see again, tape is still the most cost effective way to store compliance data. Regulatory compliance will keep tape in business.