From owner-freebsd-hardware  Tue Dec 31 14:11:20 1996
Return-Path: <owner-hardware>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA24533
          for hardware-outgoing; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 14:11:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA24527;
          Tue, 31 Dec 1996 14:11:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199612312211.OAA24527@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Are HP DAT drives more unreliable than others?
To: dave@persprog.com (David Alderman)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 14:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Cc: andreas@klemm.gtn.com, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org, aat81@dial.pipex.com
In-Reply-To: <6C4F94E2D8B@dasa.ppi.com> from "David Alderman" at Dec 31, 96 02:42:09 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

David Alderman wrote:
> 
> 
> I think the primary reason few people use the large QIC drives any 
> nore is the relatively low capacity of the drives.  525 meg (or even 
> 1 Gig) is not enough for todays multigigabyte servers. The cost of 
> cartridges is also high relative to DDS or 8mm.  
> I wonder if the new high capacity TR-4 based SCSI backups are any 
> good?  

	who makes high capacity QIC drives anymore?
	archive made several models.  they were bought by
	conner and that seemed to end their production of
	high capacity QIC drives.
> 
> Aren't DLT's very reliable?  For high capacity applications, I 
> thought DLT's were considered best.

	sopposed to be very good.  just be careful with the 'hook'
	that grabs the leader from the cartidge.
jmb