Debunking Common Arguments for Using Tape and Optical for Archiving
It is sometimes argued that media such as optical and tape are better options for archiving data when compared to disk because they have a longer shelf life, up to 100 years in the case of some optical media. Further, optical and tape vendors also argue that they are "greener" than disk because they do not have the same heating, cooling and power requirements that disk may have when used for archive.
Granted these may be valid arguments but the continuing demise of the AIT and DLT tape formats plus the questionable future of the UDO optical format in light of one optical vendor's recent restructuring announcement raises a troubling question, "Even if you do have the data stored on these media, what good is it if you have no means to recover the data when you need it since the hardware needed to read it no longer exists?"
Don't get me wrong. These aforementioned optical and tape formats may yet survive and even thrive in the coming years but not for the same reasons as in the past. Technology is all about moving forward and even among optical and tape formats, nothing stays the same. In fact, optical and tape vendors even recommend as a best practice that after 5 - 7 years users copy data from older media to new, higher capacity media to ensure readability and continued accessibility. So what good is it to archive data on either tape or optical with retention requirements of 15 - 100 years if vendors are recommending that users migrate the data off of that media to a newer media in a fraction of that time so that the media itself does not become unreadable and inaccessible, in essence obsolete?
If this was not enough to argue against the case for tape and optical, companies only need to weigh in the coming wave of new rules and regulations and litigation that is likely to engulf organizations of all sizes with enterprise organizations particularly prone to government legislation. When agencies like HUD, SEC, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or your local county attorney come calling asking for data or you have a case that is subject to FRCP data guidelines, they no longer give companies months to respond and produce the data - it is more likely weeks and even then, companies will want to produce data more quickly so it can be reviewed and assessed internally before it is shared. Furthermore, if the data is archived to optical or tape, it may take that long to retrieve and produce that data, especially if it is stored in an offsite facility.
Optical and tape solved a critical problem in organizations for a long period of time by providing a cost-effective, portable form of media. But the heightened effectiveness of disk-based archiving driven by dropping price per GB, improved data reduction technologies and the growing need to access data during eDiscoveries - not to mention the viability of these different formats long term - makes a strong argument that the case for disk-based systems for long term archiving is now as strong - or stronger - than any argument for tape or optical. Rather, companies need to look for enterprise caliber disk-based archiving platforms such as the Permabit Enterprise Archive for safe, proper and cost effective archiving.
Granted these may be valid arguments but the continuing demise of the AIT and DLT tape formats plus the questionable future of the UDO optical format in light of one optical vendor's recent restructuring announcement raises a troubling question, "Even if you do have the data stored on these media, what good is it if you have no means to recover the data when you need it since the hardware needed to read it no longer exists?"
Don't get me wrong. These aforementioned optical and tape formats may yet survive and even thrive in the coming years but not for the same reasons as in the past. Technology is all about moving forward and even among optical and tape formats, nothing stays the same. In fact, optical and tape vendors even recommend as a best practice that after 5 - 7 years users copy data from older media to new, higher capacity media to ensure readability and continued accessibility. So what good is it to archive data on either tape or optical with retention requirements of 15 - 100 years if vendors are recommending that users migrate the data off of that media to a newer media in a fraction of that time so that the media itself does not become unreadable and inaccessible, in essence obsolete?
If this was not enough to argue against the case for tape and optical, companies only need to weigh in the coming wave of new rules and regulations and litigation that is likely to engulf organizations of all sizes with enterprise organizations particularly prone to government legislation. When agencies like HUD, SEC, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or your local county attorney come calling asking for data or you have a case that is subject to FRCP data guidelines, they no longer give companies months to respond and produce the data - it is more likely weeks and even then, companies will want to produce data more quickly so it can be reviewed and assessed internally before it is shared. Furthermore, if the data is archived to optical or tape, it may take that long to retrieve and produce that data, especially if it is stored in an offsite facility.
Optical and tape solved a critical problem in organizations for a long period of time by providing a cost-effective, portable form of media. But the heightened effectiveness of disk-based archiving driven by dropping price per GB, improved data reduction technologies and the growing need to access data during eDiscoveries - not to mention the viability of these different formats long term - makes a strong argument that the case for disk-based systems for long term archiving is now as strong - or stronger - than any argument for tape or optical. Rather, companies need to look for enterprise caliber disk-based archiving platforms such as the Permabit Enterprise Archive for safe, proper and cost effective archiving.
I disagree. Though you bring up a good point about the ongoing obsolescence of tape/optical technologies vs their actual physical lifespans, I do not think anyone ever uses these as 'sell points' - tape is always going to beat drive technology for areal density and therefore is always a cheaper alternative.
Jerome,
I disagree as well! Disk bases system boils down to one thing..moving parts! The more moving parts you have, the higher the failure rate and the higher the cost for power and cooling. What tape offers is the cheapest of the cheap and optical is in the middle. Capacity, longevity, reliability and retro compatibility is an advantage of optical systems. Particularly Blu Ray based optical libraries. Disk based systems are good for Tier 1 and real time mirroring and backup for fast recovery, Tape serves well in tier 3 especially if cost is a concern and speed, longevity and reliability can be sacrificed (tape restoration times can be painful, especially if you're only looking for one file). Optical on the other hand serves both Tier 2 and Tier 3 needs by combining speed, availability, reliability, capacity, compliance and cost savings.
Alani Kuye
Phantom Data Systems Inc.
http://www.phantomdatasystems.com/opticalstorage.html