Yep and that is why I capitalized DRIVE in my comments. :-)

Good clarification though.

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

On 8/20/2014 8:17 AM, Jim Oberholtzer wrote:

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?

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects

-----Original Message-----
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

Rob Berendt

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

This thread ...


Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page