Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!ispd-newsserver!kodak!uupsi!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: tape drive info wanted.
Message-ID: <ZIZAUQB@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
References: <1991Apr8.124255.26553@qut.edu.au> <1991Apr21.171023.10002@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM> <1991Apr23.123631.6147@virtech.uucp> <1991Apr25.015612.1847@pegasus.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 17:51:51 GMT

In article <1991Apr25.015612.1847@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
> Note that 4mm drives are much newer, slower, hold half as much, use more
> expensive tapes, and (from my reading of the specs and technique) don't
> use nearly as good an error recovery approach.

4mm are slower than 8mm *if you're streaming*. 4mm hold less than 8mm *if
you can keep streaming*. But because the 4mm accelerates and decelerates
more quickly, seek time is lower and the gaps when you lose streaming are
a lot smaller.

Keeping these buggers streaming is a major problem, in general, unless
you work your butts off or just have small, fast drives. So, 8mms advantage
in capacity and speed is not quite what it's cracked up to be.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
