Correction - (per Quantum) DLT-S4 is not backwards compatible (read) w/
SDLT 220s.

That's the only reason SDLT600 is still on the table.

-Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Murphy [mailto:austin.murphy at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:28 PM
To: Martin, Jonathan (Contractor)
Cc: veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] SDLT 600 vs LTO3 ?!

On 8/7/06, Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) <JMARTI05 at intersil.com> wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have any guidance on this issue or interaction with both
> types of drives?  We're looking into upgrading our aging quantum
> library here and trying to put together a business case for one over
> the other.  I like the 800GB per tape and higher transfer speeds of
> LTO3, but being an SDLT220 shop now, I'm keen on the SDLT 600
> backwards compatibility.  I haven't priced tapes yet, but that could
> also be a determining factor.  Any real world horror stories or
> analysis anyone had done would be appreciated.  >From what I gather
> reading the list mostly everyone has gone LTO / I don't think I've
seen SDLT 600 mentioned once!?
>
> -Jonathan

Why SDLT 600 and not DLT-S4?

DLT-S4 has capacity like LTO-4 (800GB native), speed near LTO-3 (~60
MB/sec native) and is priced better than LTO-2 (~$13/100GB vs.
~$18/100GB)!  Plus a DLT-S4 drive can read SDLT 220 tapes .

LTO was created as a balance against too much control over tape in
Quantum's hands.  Now IBM and HP basically control the LTO market and
the LTO market is quickly becoming the whole "super-tape" market.  I
think Quantum is trying to make up ground it lost over the last 5 years.

On the other hand, LTO-4 should be announced before the end of the year.
That should bring down the cost of LTO-3 tapes a little.  LTO tapes are
also a little smaller.

Austin