4 ms·
Tape is also incredibly slow and difficult to scale. Also, the equipment needed to operate a cluster of tape archivers costs a lot, while they are using their o
by mcdevilkiller 6y ago
Tape is also incredibly slow and difficult to scale. Also, the equipment needed to operate a cluster of tape archivers costs a lot, while they are using their own designs dor servers, with coXmmodity hardware in them.
- cm2187 6y agoAnd to backup a NAS, it requires to regularly change the tapes. Any backup that requires manual steps is likely to be delayed and to be too infrequent to be useful.
- adrian_b 6y agoTape is slow only when you need frequently to read some random part of it, because you might need a couple of minutes to go till the other end of the tape. The reading/writing speed of tapes is excellent, better than that of hard drives, so writing a backup takes less time. For archives that are accessed only infrequently, tape is more reliable and also faster. If you want to have access in less than a minute to any part of your backups, then yes, tape is inappropriate and you must use HDDs.
- amelius 6y ago> Tape is also incredibly slow and difficult to scale Tape is still the best backup medium for many small and large companies. And by the way, how fast do you think a service like Backblaze is?