4 ms·
The trade off to all that capacity is latency. But for archival purposes, it doesn’t matter if it takes 2 seconds or 2 minutes. As long as the writes are quick
by colejohnson66 5y ago
The trade off to all that capacity is latency. But for archival purposes, it doesn’t matter if it takes 2 seconds or 2 minutes. As long as the writes are quick enough to keep up with the data.
- monocasa 5y agoAnd tape has (historically at least; I haven't check in for a few years) been faster at purely streaming loads than spinning rust. Pre SSDs, there'd be systems that streamed to tape to keep up with input data, then would offline load that into spinning rust databases to crank numbers where seeking dominated.
- ComputerGuru 5y agoYup. A well-known issue with tape is that machines have a hard time supplying it with data fast enough to keep up with its linear travel speed when creating the backups.
- selfhoster11 5y agoI believe that LTO can actually regulate the speed of the tape
- ComputerGuru 5y agoIt can, within reason. Also source machines (and more importantly, source media) are much faster in the first place this side of 2010.
- selfhoster11 5y agoYup. I did some tests and my SSD (and even HDD) can handily keep up with the data rate. If not, I can always add a small staging drive the size of a tape to pre-prepare the data for writing.