3 ms·

> Expensive for home use, but they can buy older technology I can't imagine home users being interested in buying mostly used SCSI or SAS tape drives while nav

> Expensive for home use, but they can buy older technology I can't imagine home users being interested in buying mostly used SCSI or SAS tape drives while navigating a world of format compatibility challenges and problems with improper storage. Environmental requirements for archival are narrow and most homes don't tick that box over many years or when moving. This medium is expensive, inconvenient to use and store, and in the world of home use those are killers. You don't need to take my word for it, look around at tape home use. Home users are better served by cloud storage or an external hard drive, maybe a home NAS, especially for the relatively low data volumes home usage usually involves.

servowriter 1y ago
The only part of this that is semi accurate is that SAS interface devices are a bit of a chore for the home user. I have an ATTO HBA in my Mac Pro 5,1 and it works like a charm with LTO-7 external drive. Otherwise, there are no format compatibility challenges; no stringent environmental issues. The 6 TB LTO-7 tapes are cheap and with LTFS, pretty easy to use - like drag and drop easy. I’m not sure what other issues you have encountered but if you have enough data to justify the investment, using tape in 2025 is quite straightforward.
adrian_b 1y ago
The choice between magnetic tapes and disks depends mainly on the total amount of archived data. Some years ago, after I bought a LTO-7 drive at around $3000 as a home user, I have recovered its costs after about a couple hundred terabyte of stored data. Unfortunately, nowadays the drives for LTO-9 have increased in price, so the cutoff threshold has probably increased to several hundred terabytes. Even when the amount of stored data does not provide significant savings in the cost of storage media, it may still be worthwhile to use magnetic tapes, for improved peace of mind and for avoiding the hassle of copying the data to newer HDDs every few years. I am old enough to have seen enough data loss disasters, so I would never trust cloud storage, where the access to my own data would be dependent on my ability of making continuous payments to an external entity, which is really hard to predict for any distant future. Moreover, even with a fast Internet link the access speed to cloud storage is an order of magnitude slower than to a local tape drive or HDD.
- buran77 1y ago
  Look, I get it, you're a power user with very special needs. But the rest of the home user world is on a different page. It's funny if you think home users in general have these kinds of wants or needs just because you're a user, at home. The data volumes, the cost even before we look at the TCO, the performance characteristics, the time/expertise requirements, the need (hassle) for proper storage and retrieval really kill the attraction of tape for home use. For the backup (and storage as a bonus) needs of most home users cloud or external drives are unbeatable, especially in combination.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    I should have been more precise - by “home user” I meant people who run DataCenter equipment at home; datahoarders and homelabs.
    - adrian_b 1y ago
      What I have said is that for this kind of home users external HDDs are obviously the right solution as long as the total amount of stored data is not much more than 100 TB. For some threshold in the hundreds of TB range, magnetic tapes become cheaper, despite the huge price of a tape drive, while offering additional advantages, e.g. higher sequential reading and writing speeds and higher reliability. Moreover, when computing the size of the stored data, one should take into account that the useful data size, after data compression, should be multiplied with 1.05 or 1.10, because you should add redundancy with a code able to reconstruct the data when only a small part of it is corrupted, then you should multiply by 2 or by 3, because any long-term archives must be stored as duplicated or even triplicated on different HDDs or tape cartridges, which are preferably kept at different geographical locations. Only with such precautions you can be pretty certain that no data loss will occur after many years of data storage, reaching a reliability comparable with that of printed paper.
  - hulitu 1y ago
    > For the backup (and storage as a bonus) needs of most home users cloud or external drives are unbeatable, especially in combination. Cloud is not a backup. Cloud is someone else's storage.
dale_glass 1y ago
One thing that worries me about home tape use is dust and cat hair. I've had a DDS4 tape way back, which ended up dying, and that could well be the cause. My house is not going to be as clean as a server room. I've seen tape drives taken apart and there seems to be a worrying lack of concern with any kind of air filtration on the ones I've seen at least. And I don't think it should be all that hard to deal with it. Maybe something like sucking air in through a replaceable filter and exhausting it out of the tape door.
- 3eb7988a1663 1y ago
  Wouldn't a home air filter sitting adjacent to the tape drive remove almost all of that problem?
  - dale_glass 1y ago
    Maybe, but it seems to me that the one dust sensitive and very expensive piece of hardware would be not be designed to at least try to minimize the problem.

servowriter 1y ago

The only part of this that is semi accurate is that SAS interface devices are a bit of a chore for the home user. I have an ATTO HBA in my Mac Pro 5,1 and it works like a charm with LTO-7 external drive. Otherwise, there are no format compatibility challenges; no stringent environmental issues. The 6 TB LTO-7 tapes are cheap and with LTFS, pretty easy to use - like drag and drop easy. I’m not sure what other issues you have encountered but if you have enough data to justify the investment, using tape in 2025 is quite straightforward.

adrian_b 1y ago

The choice between magnetic tapes and disks depends mainly on the total amount of archived data. Some years ago, after I bought a LTO-7 drive at around $3000 as a home user, I have recovered its costs after about a couple hundred terabyte of stored data. Unfortunately, nowadays the drives for LTO-9 have increased in price, so the cutoff threshold has probably increased to several hundred terabytes. Even when the amount of stored data does not provide significant savings in the cost of storage media, it may still be worthwhile to use magnetic tapes, for improved peace of mind and for avoiding the hassle of copying the data to newer HDDs every few years. I am old enough to have seen enough data loss disasters, so I would never trust cloud storage, where the access to my own data would be dependent on my ability of making continuous payments to an external entity, which is really hard to predict for any distant future. Moreover, even with a fast Internet link the access speed to cloud storage is an order of magnitude slower than to a local tape drive or HDD.

buran77 1y ago
Look, I get it, you're a power user with very special needs. But the rest of the home user world is on a different page. It's funny if you think home users in general have these kinds of wants or needs just because you're a user, at home. The data volumes, the cost even before we look at the TCO, the performance characteristics, the time/expertise requirements, the need (hassle) for proper storage and retrieval really kill the attraction of tape for home use. For the backup (and storage as a bonus) needs of most home users cloud or external drives are unbeatable, especially in combination.
- bombcar 1y ago
  I should have been more precise - by “home user” I meant people who run DataCenter equipment at home; datahoarders and homelabs.
  - adrian_b 1y ago
    What I have said is that for this kind of home users external HDDs are obviously the right solution as long as the total amount of stored data is not much more than 100 TB. For some threshold in the hundreds of TB range, magnetic tapes become cheaper, despite the huge price of a tape drive, while offering additional advantages, e.g. higher sequential reading and writing speeds and higher reliability. Moreover, when computing the size of the stored data, one should take into account that the useful data size, after data compression, should be multiplied with 1.05 or 1.10, because you should add redundancy with a code able to reconstruct the data when only a small part of it is corrupted, then you should multiply by 2 or by 3, because any long-term archives must be stored as duplicated or even triplicated on different HDDs or tape cartridges, which are preferably kept at different geographical locations. Only with such precautions you can be pretty certain that no data loss will occur after many years of data storage, reaching a reliability comparable with that of printed paper.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > For the backup (and storage as a bonus) needs of most home users cloud or external drives are unbeatable, especially in combination. Cloud is not a backup. Cloud is someone else's storage.

dale_glass 1y ago

One thing that worries me about home tape use is dust and cat hair. I've had a DDS4 tape way back, which ended up dying, and that could well be the cause. My house is not going to be as clean as a server room. I've seen tape drives taken apart and there seems to be a worrying lack of concern with any kind of air filtration on the ones I've seen at least. And I don't think it should be all that hard to deal with it. Maybe something like sucking air in through a replaceable filter and exhausting it out of the tape door.

3eb7988a1663 1y ago
Wouldn't a home air filter sitting adjacent to the tape drive remove almost all of that problem?
- dale_glass 1y ago
  Maybe, but it seems to me that the one dust sensitive and very expensive piece of hardware would be not be designed to at least try to minimize the problem.