[ILUG] DLT vs. DAT? Backup and archive operations

[Liam Bedford]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gary mc closkey [mailto:gmc at indigo.ie]
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm looking into using linux & samba for two purposes:
>     1) central file server for windows NT users - initially 
> about 20 clients
> max, but eventually up to 150.
>     2) backup for aforementioned server and other NT systems.
>     3) archival of scanned-in documents (maps, contracts, etc)
> 
> Specifically I'd like to know the advantages/disadvantages of 
> DAT vs. DLT
> tape systems, especially with Linux. So far I know DLT is 
> newer technology,
> stretches to higher capacities,higher transfer speeds, longer 
> tape life and
> apparently more reliable (according to NASA anyway). On the 
> downside is the
> initial cost. I couldn't find any linux-specific reasons to 
> choose one over
> the other.
> 
How many people and what's the disk space situation like? We have an AIT
solution here (25Gb per tape), which gobbles 50GB for a full backup (I
haven't
filtered stuff out yet), and < 25Gb per night for incremental's.. That on
DAT
would be painful (it was being done on the 2Gb tapes, and it took about a
week 
just to do the full backup!
> As an aside, the intended server will probably be on of the 
> Dell Poweredge
> series - I'd appreciate any comments from people with real 
> world experience
> of this particular animal.
I'm running Redhat 6.0 on a PowerEdge 1300.. nice machine, well built.. they
were out quickly when one of the drives failed, so I'm happy. We also have
NT on
about 6/7 other Poweredge's, ranging from Pentium Pro 180 to Dual PIII-450
with PERC.

I've not had reason to complain yet.

L.