Preservation of correspondence
julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Feb 6 10:38:27 CST 2007
Jim Leonard wrote:
> Jules Richardson wrote:
>> I've always used DLT for backups in recent years; far as I'm aware
>> they have a reasonable level of error detection / correction
>> information built in at the lowest level, I don't see them dying out
>> for a long time, and I prefer the fact that the media's self-contained
>> (unlike CD / DVD which runs the risk of attracting dirt / fingerprints
>> due to handling).
> It is rare that they fail completely (they usually slowly develop errors
> over time in heavy use until you have to replace them). But let me tell
> you, if you get the one rare one that does fail, it fails SPECTACULARLY.
> As in, it takes the drive with it!
I've never had one fail on me, but thankfully it'll always be easy to pick up
either an identical one or one that's compatible with the media used.
>>  Yes, tar has some verification options built in, but at least for
> Its verification is practically a non-feature. Always generate parity
> or make redundant copies.
Yep, that was my thinking too. I really need to find the time to write a Linux
util to suck tar data off DLT and checksum file-by-file to test backups;
currently I restore the whole archive and then use find/cksum/diff to check
against source data, but it's annoying needing that extra disk capacity just
for the sake of backup testing.
More information about the cctech