Ms. Meade resolves to track the zombie threat across 2011. By that, of course, we mean the zombie technology that in spite of frequent declarations of death, just won’t die. This technology: tape (what a surprise). Other technologies may be added to the list, but in the meantime, let’s examine the zombie index on tape technology.

Tape is the first and most significant threat, given the time that has passed since its death was first announced. These dire warnings were and continue to be issued by companies that long to erase tape from the IT vocabulary. EMC, Sepaton, Data Domain and similar companies have even handed out clever bumper stickers at trade shows. (“Tape sucks” … Go ahead, debase the language. The literate are beaten down once again by the ignorant.) In fact, Sepaton, a company whose name reversed spells notapes, sells virtual tape libraries. Wait, virtual tape. Tape.  notapeS/Sepaton relies on a mutation of existing tape technology for its architecture. Their systems are configured to operate with all major tape libraries, meaning that the company’s very existence, despite declaring the death of tape in its very name, depends on tape. Tape: dead and undead. Tape scores the highest possible rating on the zombie index.

The zombie nature of tape is further verified in that tape truly is deathless—at least in the near term. Tape has a shelf life of 30 years given appropriate storage conditions, and data written to tape fifty years ago[1] can still be retrieved. This makes tape an ideal candidate for long-term data protection.

Tape resurrects data in spite of natural and manmade disaster that disk falls prey to, such as a long-term power outage (which commonly occurs in the zombie literature). Tape displays additional zombie-like characteristics, including a merciless spread around the globe. First, consider that 3.5 million LTO drives[2] have been shipped worldwide, according to IDC; and consider the 15 million little zombies, called LTO tape cartridges, that have been shipped since LTO’s inception in the year 2000.

That means that anyone among you may have heard of, or touched, or been infected by the LTO zombie. Ms. Meade promises to periodically keep everyone informed about the LTO Zombie Invasion, 2011!

[1]  “Whom Does NASA Call to Recover Lost Data?” NewsUSA, January 28. 2010.http://www.copyrightfreecontent.com/environment/whom-does-nasa-call-to-recover-lost-data/

[2] LTO Consortium, “LTO Program Celebrates 10 Years of Changing the Face of the Storage Industry,” Press Release, November 18, 2010.

Dear Ms. Meade:

Did you read about the recent breakthrough[1]in tape technology—up to 50 TB per LTO tape? I was also “excited about the recently announced 3TB Seagate hard^[2] drive, but if tape devices can go to 50TB imagine what kind of hard drives we'll have in a few years time.”

Signed,

Seeing Only Disk

Dear Seeing Only Disk,

You might want to have your eyes checked. The breakthrough is in TAPE, not DISK. I find it so interesting that readers see the word “tape” and say the word “disk.” My, but the big advertising bucks spent by the Three-Letter-Disk vendor continue to pay off. Disk vendors have managed to obscure advancements in tape and instead bring to mind advancements in disk. Your disk dollars are hard at work with conflation in mind.

It is true that the 50 TB tape uses a perpendicular magnetic recording technology as does disk. In fact, tape and its automation are a lot like disk in other ways. For example, did you know that with Spectra tape libraries, you can invest in a global spare, much like you can have a stand-by in case of a RAID disk failure? And just as disk does several levels of data verification, did you know that tape drives perform a read-after-write and that Spectra libraries verify that data on tape can be retrieved through its PostScan™ feature?

So perhaps disk and tape parallels do hold true to some extent—except for the facts that

1. Tape doesn’t consume energy just to maintain data, as does disk
2. Tape media has an archival life of 30 years at a minimum, assuming decent conditions and the availability of a drive to read the data (not that big of a deal, if you store a few components along with the off-site tapes), while disk is typically used for five years or fewer; and
3. Tape costs less than disk, any way you look at it.

So aside from tape’s higher data density, longer shelf life, portability for disaster recovery, lower purchase price, ease-of-use through a file-system instead of data written in specific backup formats, and greater return on investment, disk and tape ARE a lot alike.

Or not.

Sincerely, and sincerely astounded at your reading of the letters T A P E as disk,

Ms. Meade E. Ahmogle

Dear Ms. Meade:
My data crunching company generates 2-3 TB of data per customer, and I need to store that somehow. However, I don’t have room for a tape library. The only thing I can think to do is put the data on some hard drives using Linux-based RAID software, then put the disk in a safety deposit box. Do you have any other suggestions?”
Sincerely,
Short on Space

Dear Ms. Space:
You have money and room for terabytes of disk storage, which you will squirrel away in a pretty large safety deposit box, but not a couple of dollars and rack units for a small library? Hmmm.

In pondering a polite answer to this question, Ms. Meade called to mind something similar posted on Slashdot, and is heartened that several intelligent points were discussed in that context. Being one to always encourage others in the path of light, Ms. Meade will summarize these intelligent comments and add to them.

The Short Version, by the way, in case you are averse to reading: Buy an LTO-4 tape drive and LTO-4 tapes. Forget the disk.

The Long Version: As fond as Ms. Meade is of disk, especially Spectra nTier disk, Ms. Meade understands that disk’s greatest asset is the speed at which it retrieves data—NOT its use for secure offline data storage.

Tape is cheaper than disk, even the disk to which you are likely referring. The Tape Equation: you can buy an LTO-4 tape drive for around $1400 (and likely for less), and at $40 per tape, store 800 GB of data; with these and a little compression, you are two tapes away from serious, long-term storage.  Assuming that you have more than a handful of customers annually, this pays for itself pretty rapidly, compared to purchasing cheap (and risky) jbod.

At $100/TB per hard drive and twenty customers each with 2 TB of compressed data, annually the company must shell out $4,000 per year. If, instead, the firm purchases a tape drive and LTO media, your costs are under that in just the first year-- about $2,000 for tape, and another $1,400 for the drive. You’ve paid for the drive in one year. After that, you save $60/TB. (That translates to thousands of dollars annually.)

You may want to consider a tape library, which truly are not space- or budget-hogs. Libraries such as the 4U Spectra T50e may be worth the space and time simply in convenience. This depends a great deal on your business volumes and staffing, and Ms. Meade acknowledges constraints due to current recessionary times. However, to emphasize the point: a relatively lightweight investment such as the purchase of a small library can automate data protection—and most companies that deal in data understand that their business also mandates data-caretaking.

For those unenlightened few who say that LTO tape is not a wise choice because eventually new technologies replace older ones, please consider that LTO has been around this past decade and shows no sign of going away. No migration will be necessary for years to come, given that current generations of LTO tape technology read data on tape that is two generations back, and write one generation back. With new generations about every 3 years, and giving the mobility of today’s clientele, the lifespan of at least 6-10 years is likely sufficient for your business requirements.

Frankly, the issue truly cries out for tape, and Ms. Meade is glad to add her voice to those doing the crying out.
 

Dear Ms. Meade,
I am charged with architecting a backup system without any single points of failure. Obviously, tape is SO failure-prone that I am not including it at all. How do you think I should configure such a system?
Sincerely,
Tape is Doomed

Dear Doomed,
You are doomed if you rely solely on disk for your data backup.  A possible interpretation of your question may be “How much disk does it take to replace tape?”  The answer is “unobtainium”—that is, you can’t replace tape using disk.

Further, the very concept of single point of failure is terribly funny in a terribly dark way. Failure is inevitable, unless you plan to address human imperfection? What about acts of natural and man-made disaster that may affect the national power grid? Switch problems? What about loose screws, including any screwed-up (or self-perceived screwed over) employee?

Instead, consider asking a question that does have an answer—“How can I reliably protect data?” The answer is “disk and tape.”

Ms. Meade is a major fan of disk with RAID 6, offered in Spectra’s nTier disk. With RAID 6, up to three disks can fail without affecting data integrity. Go disk and go RAID. However, disk (even with RAID 6) can’t be considered failure-proof because it has its own Achilles’ heel (aka single point of failure): the RAID controller. You can have all the data you want on all the spinning disk you want—but if the controller fails, the brains are gone, and the bits and bytes you’ve carefully protected are toast. Whither goest the RAID controller, so goeth the data. Dead controller= permanently decomposed data. So disk alone, even with the marvels of RAID, is not enough to provide true disaster recovery and continuity of operations.

Further, please note that your information about tape as failure-prone is completely wrong. Tape is, it turns out, incredibly reliable.  With tape’s reliability increase of 700% over the last decade, multiple layers of ECC protection, and smart Spectra libraries tracking media and drive health, tape meets and beats disk in terms of reliability. If you’re worried about a single point of failure,  make sure you get two tape drives. Consider the T950 and T-Finity libraries’ global spare feature—which is an installed drive that can be directed to take over in case of a drive failure.

Ms. Meade admits that she is curious about the pointy-haired boss who directed you to create the no single point of failure unobtanium backup environment….

Dear Ms. Ahmogul,
IBM recently announced that it created a 35 TB tape that will be commercially available in five years. Since then I have read articles asking good questions, like ‘Do we need 35 TB tapes?’

Sincerely,
An Easy Mark

Dear Mr. Mark,
According to urban legend, in 1981 Bill Gates defended the (then-new) PC’s limited RAM by saying: "640K ought to be enough for anybody." (He denies having said this.)

This legend comes to mind on reading your question: “Do We Need 35 TB Tapes?” (Perhaps in thirty years you may find yourself denying having asked this question.)

To answer the 35 TB question: Why, yes, we will need 35 TB tapes. Just as we continue to require ever greater RAM than 640K, we will also need ever larger storage media, simply because of the incredible rate of data creation.

Simultaneously, the percentage of data to protect over the long-term is growing. (Please refer to the IDC chart, below.)  More data, with a greater percentage of it to be stored for a decade or more, leads to an unavoidable conclusion: we will need to store all that data someplace.

Naysayers revel in pointing out (the obvious fact) that it takes a long time to fill a 35 TB tape. Hence, these Captain Obvious types hold that no one will need or use a high-capacity tape. And, of course, it’s true that filling a 35 TB tape takes awhile. It also takes awhile to fill a 1 TB tape.

The fact that it takes awhile doesn’t alter other facts that include these:
• Huge quantities of data already occupy the digital universe and are multiplying at fantastic rates.
• A steadily higher percentage of this ever-increasing data has to be protected for the long-term.
• No viable alternative to tape for long-term, proven data storage yet exists (or is on the horizon, for that matter).

Over the coming decade, the choice is between using a few big tapes or lots of small ones.  So although you, Mr. Mark, may choose to use and manage 35 one-terabyte tapes, others will chose to use and manage a single tape.

The logic is pretty straightforward.

Kindest Regards,
Ms. Meade E. Ahmogul

Source: Gantz, John F. “The Diverse and Exploding Digital Universe,” IDC White Paper, 3/08.  “Figure 8 shows a unique view of the digital universe by the degree to which the information in it might be subject to […] legal and compliance requirements such as ediscovery, HIPAA, or Sarbanes-Oxley; or be valuable enough to expect to store for 10 years or more.”

Dear Ms. Meade:
How would an enormous up-front capital expenditure (aka CapEx) for a T-Finity reduce my capital expenditures? By definition, reducing CapEx means spending less, but you're saying if I fork out a lot of money, I'll spend less? Where is that logic? And reduce my operating expenditures? (OpEx)? T-Finity will do all that--is it a toaster and a floor wax, too?

Signed,
Doing Fine With My Powderhorn

Dear Doing Fine:
So glad to hear that things are going well in your world.

Would you be interested in what is going on in the real world?  It turns out that old technology is expensive. Tried to get spare parts for your Model T lately? How about finding truly floppy floppy-disks (the 8x8 inches model) for your Atari?

At some point, it's more expensive to keep old technology, given long-term expenses, than to replace it. Once we talk about replacing something, you are looking at your capital expenses. And the T-Finity does reduce Capex considerably. This part is very straightforward: costs less up-front, doesn't require extra software applications and  servers to run them--in fact, once you buy the T-Finity, you have what you need--partitioning (that's right, no database, no server and no external application, as required by the other very large libraries), encryption (that's right, no external software or hardware as required by the other very large libraries), and remote management (once again, no external anything needed). Right there, you've reduced your capital expenditures compared to the other guys.

Operating expenses falls right into line with this. Didn't I say NO external software, hardware, anything? Those typically  come laden with service agreements and idiosyncratic interfaces.  In my world, that means more parts to manage and to break, more software to learn, and more service agreements to pay. I’m not so sure about your world.

As to the floorwax part--T-Finity lets you use more floorwax, given that it uses so much less data center space. Alternately, you could put some other equipment in the saved space. And the amount of power a T-Finity uses is approximately that used by a toaster--but only when the library is really, really busy, and depending on how you configured it.

The expenses associated with your aging and soon-to-be no-longer-supoported Powderhorn are obvious and inescapable. Sometimes, you have to do the math and face hard financial realities. When that happens for you, please remember that the T-Finity is fabulous. (Yes, Ms. Meade E. Ahmogul gets paid by Spectra, but it's true anyway.)

I do hope you enjoy your Powderhorn and its savings on floor wax (as much as ten dollars). I also hope that, once you switch to T-Finity, you enjoy savings on space, power, and more (savings that will be in the thousands of dollars, even after you subtract the ten dollars on additional floor wax).

Sincerely yours,

Ms. Meade E. Ahmogul
 

Dear Ms. Meade:
I don’t see how you can talk about tape without pain. I’ve been dealing with tape for ten years, ever since we got a big library installed, and I have had nothing but problems. Tape without pain? Hah.
Signed,
You’ve Got to be Kidding

Dear Mr. Kidding,
Did you know that Model T’s were hard to start? Is that the problem you have with your car today?

For that matter, do you find that your ten-year-old computer runs too slowly and just doesn’t have enough memory?

Complaining about antique technology, such a a ten-year-old library, does seem rather silly—so you might want to update your data center and get some current tape and library technology.  The advances over that last decade in tape and its automation are substantial. For example, did you know that with LTO, technological advances have improved tape reliability* by more than 700% over the past decade?

I didn’t think you knew that. Most people don’t.

Tape has not done a very good job at advertising its own wonderfulness. (Yes, I know that I am anthropomorphizing magnetic media.) Tape and reliability are now no longer contradictory terms.  This is particularly true when you add the intelligence of automation to tape backup. For example, Spectra libraries track media health and other media secrets, giving you the inside edge on tape use and usability.

Some wonderful things have happened in the last ten years, including the widespread use of blogs and other types of social — and magnetic — media. You might want to catch up on the latest in technology.

* Beech, Debbie. “Best Practices for backup and long-term data retention” Sylvatica Whitepaper. The evolving role of disk and tape in the data center.  June 2009 

Dear Ms. Meade:
Why would you ever recommend tape when disk is cheaper?
Signed,
I Know More Than You Do

Dear Ms. I Know More:
A little misinformation is a dangerous thing. It has become nearly axiomatic that "disk is cheaper than tape.”  This is simply unwarranted faith in the song of the disk-only vendor. The fact is, tape is cheaper than disk.

You appear to be paying far too much attention to disk-only vendors, a common problem these days. Disk itself has some marvelous qualities, which is why Spectra Logic has developed such a superior nTier disk product that is so much more affordable than the disk it competes against. Still, in the contest of cost per gigabyte between disk and tape, tape beats out disk by a significant margin.

When you compare tape to disk, gigabyte by tiny gigabyte, it becomes clear that disk is ONLY cheaper if your data center is the size of a thimble. If that is the case, you should go ahead and buy a few USB storage devices at your local office supply store and forget tape. However, we shall assume that your data center is somewhat larger than a thimble. In this case, please take into account the cost of controllers, footprint, and energy that is always required to access disk-based data; this analysis inevitably shows that tape simply costs less.

Economy disk, such as JBOD and SATA disk, costs between $3 and $15 per gigabyte of data. This compares unfavorably with tape--including high quality tape, such as Spectra Certified LTO Media. Tape costs anywhere from a mere half-dollar per gigabyte up to $3 per gigabyte (where the $3/gb typically occurs only if you are using proprietary tape technology).

I do understand that this statement (aka fact) runs counter to  the claims of most disk vendors. However, more than one disk-only vendor has been known to pick and choose numbers that best serve his interests. (Not that Ms. Ahmogul would ever indulge in such behavior.)

I hope you can trust me on this, or at least, dig into the matter a little to make a decision based on research by someone who has no vested interest in your product decision. (For example, Spectra Logic, brilliant people that they are, offer both disk and tape and so are are forced to be painfully honest about what costs what and when to use which.) Consider checking the Spectra Logic web site for some extraordinarily well-researched and well-written white papers on tape without pain.
 

Dear Ms. Meade:
My tapes are defective. My supplier says that tapes are just like that and she can’t do anything about it.

I am sick of incomplete backups due to failed tapes. What should I do?
Signed,
Tape-Hater

Dear Tape-Hater:
As I understand it, your tapes are bad and you continue to buy them from whomever. Please consider that there may be some correlation between the source of the media and its quality problems. Perhaps we should examine some alternatives. One answer seems a little obvious, but I shall state it nonetheless.

Please investigate Spectra Certified Media with a lifetime guarantee*. Also, evaluate the possibility of using Spectra libraries, which tell you which tapes are failing so you can remove them from circulation before data is at risk or backups fail. That will free you to find something else to do with the time heretofore dedicated to tracking defective tape.  And perhaps you will cease to hate tape, and instead love Spectra Logic. I certainly do. (After all, they pay me.)