The biggest problem with the IBM i virtualization of the tape device is just
that, it's only a tape device. If you happen to have a tape library there
the library functions for mounting, moving, and managing tapes are not
available, so that falls over into the NPIV/Fibre category. It is a bit
pricier and requires VIOS, but what's the cost of a recovery when you can't
manage the library properly and you don't have good backups?
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Fiber vs SAS LTO Tape Speed
For small shops with one to maybe three partitions yes SAS will be cheaper
both the drive itself and clearly the card to connect it. You can virtualize
the tape DRIVE through IBM i to other guest partitions as well.
If you have one Fiber drive and one Fiber card you can certainly go straight
between them with no switch. From a flexibility standpoint though you are
*EXACTLY equal to SAS at that point and you've spent more money!
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
On 8/19/2014 10:36 AM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
If that's the case, why would anyone ever go SAS?--
Is SAS cheaper than fiber? Significantly so?
If you are talking one card to one drive, do you really need the SAN
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact