|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:54:51 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>>> studio format.
>>
>> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended
>> to be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for
>> backup medium.
>
> Digital is digital. If you lose digital data, generally it utterly
> screws everything up.
You'd think so, but having seen them used in both lossy and lossless
situations, I'll take experience over conjecture. ;)
> I too spent many years using DAT (actually DDS-4) tapes for backup. We
> had occasional problems, but nothing major.
I never had good luck with DDS-2 tapes myself. You might recall that I
related a story a couple years ago where I got *blamed* for data loss
from DDS-2 DAT tapes even though I warned that the systems were telling
me that the backups were no good (ie, they failed verification every
night). Then the finance server crashed and was completely unrecoverable.
I don't trust DAT tapes for backup any further can I can *comfortably*
spit a rat.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |