CompuServe Thread

Tape Drive Wanted

31 messages in this thread
#84090From: David CzayaJan 6, 1993 9:57 PM
Wanted: SCSI Tape Drive for Amiga. Please leave details and asking price in CMail (73445,407). David Czaya …via AutoPilot
#84154From: Steven D. KapplinJan 7, 1993 4:48 PM
David, I don't know how much you want to spend on a tape drive, but in this month's AmigaWorld I saw an ad from a mail order company who was selling a CBM A3070 tape drive (case and all) for $349. Just for your info.
#84249From: David CzayaJan 8, 1993 12:19 PM
Thanks Steve. I did see that ad and seriously considered it, but found a drive elsewhere. Thanks!!!! David Czaya …via AutoPilot
#84304From: Steven D. KapplinJan 8, 1993 9:55 PM
David, Great! Glad you found what you wanted. Tape backups can be nice, but they do have one drawback. Although backups can be fast and convenient, restoring a single file or a few files can be mucho time consuming since you may have to search through a lot of tape to find the file(s). But they are nice for big backups, although all in all not a lot faster than floppies. I find that typical backup to tape is at around 3 to 4 meg per minute for file backups and that's only about 3 times faster than floppies. I guess if one had the bucks the way to go is the DAT tapes which are a lot faster than QIC.
#84322From: Donovan WattsJan 9, 1993 12:23 AM
Yeah, tapes are pretty slow. I use my Syquest and two cartridges to backup my computer. Works pretty darn fast.
#84360From: Steven D. KapplinJan 9, 1993 11:34 AM
Donovan, Yes, backing up to a fast drive is a lot quicker, and it's especially more covenient if you do file backups and later need to restore one or a few individual files. No need to wait while the tape is scanned to find that one file you need, which just happens to be at the very end of the backup!! That ends up taking just as much time as the backup itself. Although tape is convenient, I find, for complete backups and permanent archives, it isn't very convenient if you often need to restore individual files. The unfortunate aspect of it all is that whether you use tape or syquests you are looking at an expensive backup solution. I have a 240 meg hard drive which would require about 4 of the 44 meg cartridges to back up existing files at a cost of about $280, more or less, not including the $400 plus cost of the drive and case. At the current cost of floppies I figure that amounts to about 1,400 floppy disks! Given the speed of tape, I'm no longer convinced that my tape drive is much of a benefit nor am I convinced that the syquest route is either since one doesn't really do backups too often. Gives one pause to think ….
#84403From: Dave CinegeJan 9, 1993 3:42 PM
Pick up an Archive/Wangtek 525meg tape drive….10 megs a minute isn't to bad Dave Elite MicroComputers – via Whap!
#84414From: Steven D. KapplinJan 9, 1993 4:16 PM
Dave, I have an archive viper which is capable of doing a max of around 5 to 6 megs per minute, but only doing a mirror backup. File backups take much longer, nearly half as fast. Although the tape drives can handle data fast under the right conditions, usually doing file backups won't be near the drive's capable speeds. Restores often take even longer than the backups. Part of that problem might be that programs like AmiBack and QB aren't optimized for tapes or that the optimum configuration for tape backups isn't easily determined. I use AmiBack, but haven't the foggiest notion of what configuration for the tape will maximize throughput. AmiBack docs are no help, they say experiment to find the settings that work best … that's not much help!!
#84544From: Dave CinegeJan 10, 1993 9:43 AM
I just sold my Archive 2150s and I have right now a wangtek 5525….. With the archive it took me about an hour to do 130 megs….with this drive I do it in about 15-17….close enough to 10 megs a minute for me. Dave Elite MicroComputers – via Whap!
#84588From: Mark SterlingJan 10, 1993 3:01 PM
Maybe your 2150S was set up wrong. Was this on an A1000 w/256k and a Tecmar SCSI controller? <really big wide grin> The last time I ran the 2150S on my clunky old 2500/020 it did 4 meg/minute which would back up your 130 megger in half an hour. The A3070 I use now does about the same. The 2150S is now in a UNIX machine. Goin' AP6 …..Mark Sterling6
#84589From: Steven D. KapplinJan 10, 1993 3:08 PM
Dave, Indeed, much faster. However, I am stuck with the viper for right now and will have to settle for slower!!
#84634From: Michael GerardJan 10, 1993 9:57 PM
my viper backs up 120 meg in about 16 min's.
#84587From: Mark SterlingJan 10, 1993 3:01 PM
Steve, I am getting about 6meg/minute with QB 5.0 and an A3070 on my A3000. I also tried an Archive Viper with similar results. The 3070 does about 4.5meg/minute on an A2500/020. QB is set for Async data transfer, 512K buffer size. Amiback runs about the same speed. This is NOT a mirror backup. I only doe file-by-file backups. BTW the Archive drive does about the same 6 meg/minute on a 486DX/33 machine running UNIX with an Adaptec 1542b SCSI controller. Goin' AP6 …..Mark Sterling6
#84592From: Steven D. KapplinJan 10, 1993 3:14 PM
Mark, I am using Asynch transfer with a buffer of 256k on AmiBack working with an IVS Trumpcard Pro SCSI controller. Yesterday I backed up 17 meg of files and it took, according to AmiBack's timer, about 7 minutes. It should take less time, but for some reason the IVS card's built-in drive detection slows things down considerably. I think it would go faster if the drive could support reselection or if the IVS software could set the tape drive for reselection. The IVS scanning seems to slow things down quite a bit. When I was running a Nexus controller the same backup would have taken about 4 to 5 minutes. In either case, however, that's slower than 6 meg/minute which I have only seen during a mirror backup.
#84743From: Mark SterlingJan 11, 1993 7:40 PM
What processor are you running? 4-5 minutes for 17meg is not that bad but 7 minutes is real slow. There must be a problem with what hardware you are using or the setup. The lowly 2091 controller has given me better performance with a lowly 2500/020 which is only a 68020 running at 14mHz. Goin' AP6 …..Mark Sterling6
#84687From: Central Coast SoftwareJan 11, 1993 9:43 AM
Dave, With Quarterback you can get fairly high data transfer rates when backing up to tape. When doing a file backup we get over 5 megs a minute going to Commodore's 3070 or our own Touchdown 100 tape drive, which is pretty much the max transfer rate of the drives. With faster tape drives we get even higher rates. If you are using Quarterback (or for others out there who are), you can get the fastest tape backup times by turning on the "No display while operation in progress" check box (in the "Session Log" requester). You can also drop by our vendor support section of AmigaVendor (section 1) if you have any questions. James Bayless Central Coast Software A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.
#84722From: Steven D. KapplinJan 11, 1993 3:15 PM
James, Thank you for that suggestion. Unfortunately, I had to stop using QB because it wouldn't work with my Nexus controller. After several calls to Central Coast people asking for help and being assured a future upgrade would fix the problem, it's still here. QB simply locks up the machine when trying to run to tape using the Nexus controller. I recently installed an IVS Grand Slam, but I no longer have a current version of QB (I still only have 5.0) and haven't tried to see if it does work with the Grand Slam. Perhaps I'll give it a try and see how it does.
#84791From: Central Coast SoftwareJan 12, 1993 10:27 AM
Steven, Sorry to hear that you are not using Quarterback. The problems with the Nexus controller were due to the controller, not Quarterback (if memory serves, they were not properly handling some of the SCSI commands that Quarterback uses–they were seldom used commands, but still part of the required SCSI command set). We tried to find a work-around in Quarterback (that wouldn't hurt its performance on other controllers), but were not able to find a satisfactory solution. We did report the problems to the Nexus card's manufacturer. They acknowledged the problem and said they would work on a fix. Apparently they still haven't done that. You can get patches to change your version of Quarterback (version 5.0) to the latest version (version 5.0.3). The patch files are in our vendor support section of AmigaVendor (section 1). If you are still using the Nexus controller, you should contact their manufacturer to see if they ever did, or plan to, fix it. James Bayless Central Coast Software A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.
#84465From: Donovan WattsJan 9, 1993 9:50 PM
I agree. I guess DAT would be the elegant route but how much are they these days? I think they are still _very_ expensive.
#84490From: Steven D. KapplinJan 9, 1993 11:30 PM
Donovan, Yep, mucho expensive. Oh well, guess we must make do with what we can afford, huh?
#84392From: David CzayaJan 9, 1993 2:56 PM
My main reason for getting a tape was that I have accumulated a couple hard drives totalling around 350 megs and backing up to floppies is simply impossible, economically or realistically. A tape drive was my only recourse and I must have backups because I am running half my business off this computer and I just couldn't afford a data loss. Up to now, I have just been backing up critical data onto floppies, but it was getting scary. Now, I can relax a bit. David Czaya …via AutoPilot
#84413From: Steven D. KapplinJan 9, 1993 4:10 PM
David, Yes, when you need to maintain permanent archives that large, then the tape is helpful. It is most useful when you don't really need to use the backups frequently and to do permanent archives. But floppies or some other method is faster if you need to frequently restore individual files from the backups, at least that's been my experience, rather than doing it from the tapes. I admire your tempting fate for so long!!! Invariably, I get comfortable when the system works well for a while and tend to ignore doing daily or weekly backups. But I always end up paying the penalty for being lax!! Last time I got careless it took me an entire day to restore things. Experience is a tough taskmaster.
#84665From: David CzayaJan 11, 1993 2:16 AM
After two near disasters, I made up my mind to do daily backups of my critical data. In fact, when I am doing a lot of work, I'll back up even more often. It's more work in the short haul, but there's nothing so aggravating as working for 6 hours on something and getting a black-out 5 minutes before you're done (except maybe typing Delete DH0: all and walking away). David Czaya …via AutoPilot
#84721From: Steven D. KapplinJan 11, 1993 3:12 PM
David, Ain't that the truth!! Although I don't run a business off my computer, I use several of them regularly as part of my work as a college professor. I keep student records, research papers, letters, memos, schedules, etc. Failure to back up can prove a disaster. It's really a shame that most of us, me included, tend to get complacent and develop that: "well it's working so well today, guess I'll wait until tomorrow to do backups." Of course after several weeks of "tomorrows" it's too late to recover from that blackout, power failure, etc. What is really needed is both the hardware/software for automatic background backups. But even then, I'd probably get lazy and forget to turn something on!!
#84734From: Betty Clay/SYSOPJan 11, 1993 5:08 PM
Steve, AmiBACK can do timed backups. —Betty
#84752From: Steven D. KapplinJan 11, 1993 9:50 PM
I know. I was thinking more along the lines of just automatic backup, rather than being timed to do full or incremental backups at specified times. Using schedulers is, of coures, an easy way to accomplish somewhat the same end result. Any backup program can be scheduled either with ARexx or Cron or some such animal. Problem, though, is that even programs like Amiback or QB tend to cause sluggish behavior while doing disk accesses even tho they are supposed to be multi-tasking behaved. I would like to see something truly transparent. But I know that's not feasible for these small machines and my meager budget!
#84780From: Ron McNicholJan 12, 1993 1:50 AM
Backupers, Seems to me that as long as all the data to be backed up fits on one volume, speed is of secondary importance. If the backup fits on one volume, it can be run at the end of the day, when one is done with the computer. Mine only runs 1-2 shifts a day, depending on how long I can sit in one place. I'll bet $$$ to doughnuts that my backup will finish during the 3rd shift. 8^) Even if restore is slow, I'm thankful that I have the data to restore. In my case, most of my tape use is write only. Hope it stays that way. (QB 5.0 + A3070/ A4000 + extra Conner 120) Ron
#84914From: Steven D. KapplinJan 13, 1993 2:54 PM
Ron, In theory I could do all my backups on a single 250 meg tape, provided the backup software supported tape append. I know that AmiBack does, but I'm not sure if QB does, or at least I seem to remember that early versions did not or that the documentation wasn't clear that it did. However, I have my drive partitioned into 4 different drives and it would be much easier to keep track of things by keeping a separate tape for each partition, That makes automatic backups a bit of a pain because tapes would have to be changed. Were I to go the easier route of appending all backps to a single tape, then it would be a LONG wait to scan a 250 meg tape to get the last volume on it! There just doesn't seem to be a perfect solution!!!
#85039From: Central Coast SoftwareJan 14, 1993 12:59 PM
Steven, You can easily backup several different hard disk partitions to the same tape with Quarterback. We even include an AREXX macro with Quarterback that makes it automatic. Drop by our vendor support section (section 1) of the AmigaVendor forum if you need any assistance with this. James Bayless Central Coast Software A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.
#85077From: Steven D. KapplinJan 14, 1993 4:49 PM
James, Yes, I noted the ARexx macro and took a look at it. It appears that you simply have to NOT rewind the tape at the end of backup, from what I could tell. Can you restore separate partitions from a multiple backup or do you have to restore all the partitions at one time? I couldn't tell from the macro what the procedure for restore is. If you cannot restore a partition individually, then you should think about including that facility in a future revision. AmiBack includes append as an integral part of program control of the backup/restore operations. Thus, if you need to access only a single partition on the tape, you can scan directly to that part of the tape to do the restore. Does QB work similarly?
#85170From: Central Coast SoftwareJan 15, 1993 10:55 AM
Steven, Yes, Quarterback does allow you to restore individual partitions from a tape that has several different ones on it. Use the "Space" command in the "Tape Control" requester to advance (space) the tape to the partition you want to restore (incidentally, the "Tape Control" requester is also where you set Quarterback to not automatically rewind after each backup). Its all pretty simple once you have tried it. James Bayless Central Coast Software A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.