Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 10:41:26 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is this (SCSI) tape drive compatible with FreeBSD? Message-ID: <19970907104126.56920@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19970906102021.YZ35994@uriah.heep.sax.de>; from J Wunsch on Sat, Sep 06, 1997 at 10:20:21AM %2B0200 References: <mike@smith.net.au> <199708310611.UAA14714@pegasus.com> <19970906102021.YZ35994@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 06, 1997 at 10:20:21AM +0200, J Wunsch wrote: > As Richard Foulk wrote: > >> I suppose you could say that QIC was more robust back when they were >> more widely used and less data was being archived. In today's world >> they're not all that robust when compared to the alternatives. > > QIC still *is* more robust than any helical-scan technology. DAT > being worst, the drives usually don't last longer than 1.5 years when > being used on a daily basis (and this was with the older, better > quality HP drives, the toys that are built these days often don't > survive a couple of months). While I won't question the undeniable unreliability of early HP DDS drives, I can't confirm that they're getting worse. My 37480As all died within about 6 months with only moderate use, and to my extreme disgust my last one, repaired last December at the cost of $200, and only used once since then, has also died again. On the other hand, the Archive DDS-2 autoloader I bought at the same time, and which I use several hours every day, has given me no trouble at all. Neither did my HP C1533A DDS-2 until it got mechanically damaged travelling half way round the world. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970907104126.56920>