3 ms·
> I'm pretty sure that's tape, not HDD. Nope, I'm only 27.
by adwn 12y ago
> I'm pretty sure that's tape, not HDD.
Nope, I'm only 27.
- 1amzave 12y agoIt's less a matter of age than environment -- there are still plenty of places using lots of tape. (It's not like we're talking about vacuum tubes or core memory here...)
- adwn 12y agoClarification: I didn't mean to imply that tape is dead, but that during the 15 years that I've been programming, tape drives have only been used in enterprise-level backup systems, and are not used as "archetypal example" in articles intended for a more general audience.
- pyre 12y agoThere are tapes that store 200GB+. It's definitely not a dead medium.
- johngalt 12y agoLTO5 can do 1.5TB on a $20 tape.
- pyre 12y agoWell, I know that there were tapes doing at least 200GB a few years ago (LTO2?), hence the '+'. :) I don't work with tapes at all, but I know that they are not dying as a medium...
- johngalt 12y agoWasn't meant as a criticism or correction. Simply to underscore your point. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.
- johngalt 12y agoTape is still in use today. Widely. I bet there are more companies archiving to tape than archiving to AWS. For most of the past 27 years it would be the dominant archival method.
- Dylan16807 12y agoarchiving to tape, not using tape as active storage. I think you and sibling comments are missing the point.