Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

LTO-3 still the way to go?

Offhollywood said:
Cable comes with the unit - I have used our 600A direct to MacBook Pro - no problems. I LOVE the 600A - we use it every day - it is fantastic.
Click to expand...

Hi Mark, got my LT03a and connected to Macbook Pro. How do you select an attached drive eg an external Esata? The FTP client on the LOCAL pane only show the local disk - / .

Lim
 
On the LOCAL pane, get to the top level directory (root /) and you should see a directory called Volumes. Open that up, and you should see all your external drives.
 
kenn michael said:
On the LOCAL pane, get to the top level directory (root /) and you should see a directory called Volumes. Open that up, and you should see all your external drives.
Click to expand...

Thanks Kenn. need to brush up my unix.
 
From the point view of tape archive, regular (traditional) LTO3 is better than LTO3A in terms of data accuracy & life length, if for archival purpose.

LTO3A is excellent for easy of use (little technical support is needed), but it doesn't come with read verification after backup by default (I guess, based on its use as FTP server, no time for verification[take almost same amount of time], I don't have hands-on experience yet, pls correct me if I'm wrong), also when you use it as a harddrive/FTP server for often daily operation, tapes are easier to worn out.

So the suggestion for LTO3A: if you use it for archival purpose, make another backup set just for archival purpose.

Since LTO3A is lack of data verification by default operation (as it will double the operation time), you might be at the risk of data not readable when you are doing restore.

For Bank, all important data are backed up to tape with read verifcation, and only use regular LTO3/4, not LTO3A.

Just my thought FYI.
 
Okay, so I believe I have finally gotten my SAS LTO-3 drive to work with my Mac! I had gotten a Highpoint-Tech SAS card, but it turns out that I needed a Atto H380 card to get it working. OSX and Retrospect both see the drive and are ready to write to tape. BRU LE, I believe, will work but I installed the demo long ago and never got to try it out before it expired. So for just over $2k ($1600 LTO3, $310 for SAS card, $70 for SAS cable, and $130 for Retrospect) you can get a nice LTO-3 backup!

Matthew
 
Hi Matthew,

we are using LTO3 (no LTO3A) since a year or so with a Mac G5 connected via SCSI. We have to limit the Atto card to SCSI 160 and disbable "disconnect" otherwise the tape drive dsiconnects while backuping at least when verifying. Average write speed is 26 MB/sec which is way lower than the advertised 40 MB/s. How fast and reliable is your SAS setup? Can you safely create backup sets over 3 tapes with working verifying? Unfortunately LTO on the Mac is hardly documented.

My hopes for a stable OSX LTO is the new upcoming Retrospect for the Mac that will hopefully get a userfriendly GUI and better communication with the tape drive.

Sidenote:
I cannot comment on the LTO3A but if it does not have the ability to verify and is "just" a normal volume it's not really suited for archival purposes (on a harddisk I can let the footage play and test the copy manually when in doubt - with tape I cannot...).


Hans
 
Hey Hans

I have LTO-3 connected to mac pro over scsi using retrospect and OSX and have never had any problems, except when an asst was trying to back up and transcode data at the same time :pinch: !

It has always worked pretty seamlessly for the last year and we have backed up two feature projects and a bunch of other stuff!

Mike Costelloe
 
HI Guys, I've been following this thread for a while. This might be of interest to Jeff Kilgroe.

After AGAIN losing 640GB on a LeCIE 1TB fw disk (second time on a second external firewire disk), on MACPRO OSX 10.5.4, I went out and bought a QUANTUM Ultrium4 LTO SAS i/face Desktop tape drive model number TC-L42BN-EY (black).

My set up is:
• MAC PRO 2007 -core model with OSX 10.5.4
•*QUANTUM Ultrium4 LTO SAS i/face Desktop tape drive model number TC-L42BN-EY (black)- aka TABLETOP model ($USD2750 from http://www.digtape.com in usa - these guys are great!)
•*ATTO ESAS-R380-000 R380 ExpressSas RAID (works fine with my external Proavio raid)
DEMO version of TolisGroup BRU LE - I'm waiting patiently for the TolisGroup's "PRoducer VErsion" for OSX.. should be available soon.

Tape Device: I went for the SAS interface Quantum Ultrium LTO4 device ($USD2750) - far less if internal enclosure at $USD1850 I think. I contacted Tolis and they said that they supported this tape drive with ATTO R380 so that suited me as I had the ATTO R380 HBA. The QUANTUM Ultrium4 LTO SAS i/face Desktop tape drive model number TC-L42BN-EY (black) is new and the price was surpisingly good considering some tape library vendors sell them inside a library for $USD18000 (yes that eighteen thousand us dollars) with a library attachment - . Other tape drives from SUN/STK (their FC T10K is about €40,000!).. not for me.

And to an earlier post from Jeff, you're right, the Quantum tape drive comes bundled with an SFF-8088 to SFF-8047 cable - useless for the R380 so I bought another one SFF-8088 to SFF-8088 here in Hong Kong (they are expensive). The 'bundled software' is a real joke however :blush: . It's ye old LEgato/Symantics Backup for wind-duzz server - useless for me. Nice tape drive though!

Software: I'm interested in ARCHIVE not backup. For enterprise on the OSX platform (As solaris, linux and win-duzz) there is SGL's FLASHNET (http://www.sgluk.com).. but for a desktop its not the go. FLASHNET has an OSX SERVER and an OSX client and works also with Avid Unity's Transfer Manager if you have that workflow.

SO like many of you guys and the OP I have looked as OSX based software for a while and there's not much there as may of you know and of the least interesting is EMC's Retrospect™ :blink: . Yes it has not moved since the early 1990's.. so I like TolisGroup's BRU "Production Edition" :tongue: . If it is anything like BRU LE and is more targeted to CONTENT PRoducers. then I think it will be really good. I am waiting for the BETA programme to finish. (refer to Mr Paige Jones @ Tolisgroup - a really helpful lad!)

Current Issues:
•*right now ATTO R380 has trouble seeing the QUANTUM Ultrium4 LTO SAS i/face Desktop tape drive. I've done something I should not have... will fix it.
• OSX tapectl display : sees nothing.

I've opened a ticket with ATTO and Tolisgroup. ATTO (Nate!) is extremely helpful. I hope to have a resolution this week. Calling Quantum tomorrow morning GMT+8.

I'm not a RED owner but have a similar issues with Panasonic HVX-200 P2 stuff in that I don't want to lose it.

Some other things on this thread:
I think many of the posters have confused the Quantum SDLT-600A as 'LTO" - this is NOT correct. THe SDLT-600(A with MFX) is a Quantums own SuperDLT format (grandson of ye old DLT4000, DLT7000 and DLT8000 ofte late 1990's).
• the QUANTUM LTO-3A (LTO format) and the SDLT-600A over GbE are really really slow. Think about the PACKET sizes over IPoverN versus the huge BLOCKSIZES of some tape drives such as the IBM3492 can be as large as 1MB so far less I/I over a host attached path (SAS, SCSI, FC etc).
• The SDLT600A's and the LTO-3A's MXF wrapping is cute and I can see the merits but the interface transfer is not very good in my experience (very poor) . I can see its virture in the field wth a MACBOOK PRO and a EN0 connect to a tape drive. I assume you can owner it ok (the LTO-3A or the SDLT600).

I'll keep this thread posted with outcomes.. but looks good so far!

Warwick
Hong Kong
 
I think some of you may be missing some of the advantages of the LTO A series. Not LTO-3, but LTO-3A. I know it is slower, but I still think it is the best choice.

If you hand a LTO4 tape to client as a archive of there program or raw footage from there shoot, what do you tell them? Do you tell them how it was backed up and what software you used?

If they look at this tape 5 years from now it could have been archived in a number of different ways with a number of different programs and older versions of the software that might or might not still be in use.

With the LTO3A you just put it in the tape machine and it works. The directory structure is kept on the tape. Just like a video tape. If you are looking for a single file you simply drag it off using a ftp client. For post houses that are working with lots of clients this seems like a very good choice. It also seem like a comfort to the client to have a tape that they can take into any facility with an LTO A series machine and restore any specific clip. Just like a tape machine.

The way I understand it, if you do a standard LTO 3 or 4 backup, you have to restore the entire tape, or maybe even set of tapes to get a single file off it. If you do not have the program it was backed up with, and the project file that created it.

I understand that the traditional LTO backup that is used for data works great for the banks, but they are only using there own servers and archiving for there own use, not to trade the tapes with others.

The A series is what Quantum designed for the professional video/film market. I understand in is not the fastest solution, but the simple fact that it is self contained on the tape makes it the best solution in my opinion.
 
Terry,

Not picking on you, but I just want to clear up a few things. With standard LTO systems, you can in fact retrieve single files. No need to restore entire backups. This is a function of the backup software being used and any decent backup / archival software will provide good data cataloging and retrieval operations, among other things.

You bring up a point of trading tapes... In some ways the A-Series units would make this easier, but in some ways not. The vast majority of LTO units in the world are not A-Series drives and most who already have an established LTO system will not choose an A-Series drive because the A-Series are incompatible with conventional LTO systems. IMO, this is Quantum's biggest mistake with the new format. However, Quantum has mentioned on more than one occasion that once the A-Series is more established, they will open up the format to software developers. Hopefully that happens soon as that would allow for most any decent tape software to also read and write the A-Series format. But that would also undermine Quantum's warped pricing policy for the A-Series units. Eventually it will happen or the A-Series drives and format are doomed to a lifetime of mediocre reception by the IT industry.

Going back to the tape swapping, I personally don't think that's a great solution for sharing content, even on large projects. Even with the fastest LTO-4 units, tape is still a lot slower than other means of data transport. Keep the tapes for your archives, but use HDDs to swap physical media. If I needed someone to hand me 1.5TB of R3D footage to edit, I would be pissed off if they gave me tapes. Even if it would be just two LTO-4 tapes in a format that I could simply pop into my desktop unit and restore. I don't want to deal with tape.

LTO-3A is slow as you say, but it has its good and bad points. The pros of the A-series format are:

No dependence on third-party software and consistent data format. Easy ethernet connectivity. Common FTP interface and JAVA applet so it's accessible and usable from any platform right out of the box.

The cons of the format are:
Slow, but we have already covered that. Not compatible with tapes written outside of an A-Series unit, even with proper software. Quantum is the only manufacturer and promoter of this system. Flat-out overpriced, 10 out of 10 industry experts will agree with you on that one. The "designed for film and video" speech is getting old. That's what we hear / read in our world. But Quantum is pitching the units to every other industry the same way. It's also designed specifically for the manufacturing industry and the financial industry, etc.. As far as anything specific for film and video support, it has very limited internal support for MXF containers, but when I said limited, I really mean that it only works with just one type of MXF and provides no real benefits for it, other than allowing insertion or extraction of files within. While the unit is a network-attached unit, it's hardly multi-user in the sense that two or more people trying to access it can lock up the unit and cause problems because the unit's own internal scheduling isn't very robust. It's own internal software is only half-baked and many standard FTP commands are not supported. It's near impossible to archive many system-level files and access controlled data without additional third-party software. After all, accessing the drive is no different than accessing any ordinary FTP server. Therefore it's true convenience as a "backup" solution is negated.

I don't mean to bash the A-Series units, but in a way I guess I am. I spent several months looking at them. Almost bought one on multiple occasions, played with them, etc.. In the end, I just couldn't get the numbers to work and couldn't get the unit to do what I felt it should for the money.

I have two LTO tape systems in place. The first is a small form factor PC unit I assembled with internal RAID storage and an LTO-3 drive. It's not a whole lot bigger than the desktop A-Series unit from Quantum. Maybe 30% larger, but it does weight more. Spends most of the time on a table or cart anyway. But it does everything the A-Series unit does and more and all of it better / faster, IMO. I just don't get the A-Series tape format. But I can drag and drop files to the unit or access it via FTP. It appears on the network as both an FTP server and as NAS. It writes whatever data is on it's internal storage to tape(s) at scheduled intervals or whenever I send it the write-to-tape command. This system cost me about half of what current street price is on the LTO-3A desktop. It was less than $3K to get it up and running and about 6 hours on a saturday afternoon to build, test and put into service.

My second LTO system is the Quantum desktop LTO-4 SAS unit. Out of the box and installed onto a Mac Pro in under 5 minutes. Since installing this unit, I haven't used the previous LTO-3 NAS box.

For multi-user installations, I think a good SAN infrastructure and proper LTO-4 autoloading library would be a far more practical and cost-effective than any A-series product. Even the A-Series autoloader, which I almost seriously considered buying as well.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
For multi-user installations, I think a good SAN infrastructure and proper LTO-4 autoloading library would be a far more practical and cost-effective than any A-series product. Even the A-Series autoloader, which I almost seriously considered buying as well.
Click to expand...

Jeff what system do you have?

IBloom
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Terry,

Not picking on you, but I just want to clear up a few things. With standard LTO systems, you can in fact retrieve single files. No need to restore entire backups. This is a function of the backup software being used and any decent backup / archival software will provide good data cataloging and retrieval operations, among other things.
Click to expand...

Jeff,
You are missing my point. Of course you can restore a single file on the same computer or system it was backed up on, but I ask the question again. If you hand a LTO4 tape to client as an archive of there program or raw footage from there shoot, what do you tell them? Do you tell them how it was backed up and what software you used?

Jeff Kilgroe said:
You bring up a point of trading tapes... In some ways the A-Series units would make this easier, but in some ways not. The vast majority of LTO units in the world are not A-Series drives and most who already have an established LTO system will not choose an A-Series drive because the A-Series are incompatible with conventional LTO systems. IMO, this is Quantum's biggest mistake with the new format. However, Quantum has mentioned on more than one occasion that once the A-Series is more established, they will open up the format to software developers. Hopefully that happens soon as that would allow for most any decent tape software to also read and write the A-Series format. But that would also undermine Quantum's warped pricing policy for the A-Series units. Eventually it will happen or the A-Series drives and format are doomed to a lifetime of mediocre reception by the IT industry.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the above point, but most post houses don't have a conventional LTO systems in place, and they need something that feels and acts like video tape. I still think that the A-series is the best choice.


Jeff Kilgroe said:
Going back to the tape swapping, I personally don't think that's a great solution for sharing content, even on large projects. Even with the fastest LTO-4 units, tape is still a lot slower than other means of data transport. Keep the tapes for your archives, but use HDDs to swap physical media. If I needed someone to hand me 1.5TB of R3D footage to edit, I would be pissed off if they gave me tapes. Even if it would be just two LTO-4 tapes in a format that I could simply pop into my desktop unit and restore. I don't want to deal with tape.
Click to expand...

I agree, I am referring only to archiving of finished projects and raw footage. Which means for my clients, can they get there footage, or project back 5 years from now? At a different facility? That is what my client wants to know. With the non A-Series they can do that, but there are so many variables.

I know that there is no guaranty that there will be an A-Series deck around, in 5 years, but I still think it is the only real choice right now.

Jeff Kilgroe said:
LTO-3A is slow as you say, but it has its good and bad points. The pros of the A-series format are:

No dependence on third-party software and consistent data format. Easy ethernet connectivity. Common FTP interface and JAVA applet so it's accessible and usable from any platform right out of the box.

The cons of the format are:
Slow, but we have already covered that. Not compatible with tapes written outside of an A-Series unit, even with proper software. Quantum is the only manufacturer and promoter of this system. Flat-out overpriced, 10 out of 10 industry experts will agree with you on that one. The "designed for film and video" speech is getting old. That's what we hear / read in our world. But Quantum is pitching the units to every other industry the same way. It's also designed specifically for the manufacturing industry and the financial industry, etc.. As far as anything specific for film and video support, it has very limited internal support for MXF containers, but when I said limited, I really mean that it only works with just one type of MXF and provides no real benefits for it, other than allowing insertion or extraction of files within. While the unit is a network-attached unit, it's hardly multi-user in the sense that two or more people trying to access it can lock up the unit and cause problems because the unit's own internal scheduling isn't very robust. It's own internal software is only half-baked and many standard FTP commands are not supported. It's near impossible to archive many system-level files and access controlled data without additional third-party software. After all, accessing the drive is no different than accessing any ordinary FTP server. Therefore it's true convenience as a "backup" solution is negated.
Click to expand...

No dependence on third-party software and consistent data format is the most important thing. It trumps all the negatives in my opinion. It is by no means perfect, but it is still the best choice for my facility and many others.

I have talked with Quantum at length and they have assured me that they are working on making it compatible with none A- Series units. You will just have to restore the whole tape to get anything off it.

As far as cost. It is much more expensive than a LTO-3 drive. But I consider my self an industry expert, and I found if very reasonably priced. We are also in the market for a Sony HDCAM SR Deck. So maybe it is just perspective of where you are standing.

Jeff Kilgroe said:
I don't mean to bash the A-Series units, but in a way I guess I am. I spent several months looking at them. Almost bought one on multiple occasions, played with them, etc.. In the end, I just couldn't get the numbers to work and couldn't get the unit to do what I felt it should for the money.
Click to expand...

I understand that the A-Series is not right for you, but it is right for some. Everybody has there own way of working, and there own problems to solve. Even though we are not working with tape as much anymore, clients have that tape mentality, and they probably will for a long time.

I can't imagine handing a client a Digibeta and telling him by the way you need the files on this CD to get the data off it, oh and you have to use Retrospect. I just can't sell that in my world.
 
Before you hand your client any archive, THEY should tell you how they want it archived. IF they don't know, then you should discuss the options.

It's their archive and it's important that archive can be restored when needed, either by you or someone else.

If you're archiving for internal use only, it doesn't matter as much what you use. It's when you have archives for clients that needs a higher degree of compatibility.

A lot of post houses that still exchange storage tapes between each other over the years have been using TAR archives. It's easy to restore on a stand alone tape drive with the appropriate drivers.

I have come across a rare few using Bru years ago, occasionally NT Backup and Retrospect.

In 5 years, LTO-3A may not even be around. Obsolescence is an issue that doesn't always get addressed. Whatever future LTO or successor format may not even handle anything legacy formats.

I've done archives on many formats over the years, Exabyte, Metrum, DLT, AIT, Super AIT, Super DLT, DTF, DTF-2, LTO. The only ones see nowadays is LTO and occasionally a DTF-2.

As of now, you may not need 3rd party software, but you definitely need an A Series LTO drive to restore.

I don't know if anyone in the film market who's done archiving by command line on stand alone drives or using archive software with tape robots for years would find the A Series that appealing.
 
macville said:
Okay, so I believe I have finally gotten my SAS LTO-3 drive to work with my Mac! I had gotten a Highpoint-Tech SAS card, but it turns out that I needed a Atto H380 card to get it working. OSX and Retrospect both see the drive and are ready to write to tape. BRU LE, I believe, will work but I installed the demo long ago and never got to try it out before it expired. So for just over $2k ($1600 LTO3, $310 for SAS card, $70 for SAS cable, and $130 for Retrospect) you can get a nice LTO-3 backup!

Matthew
Click to expand...

Matthew
Is your LTO 3 SAS solution working for you?
I am just about to purchase it...
Thanks
 
albert rudnicki said:
Matthew
Is your LTO 3 SAS solution working for?
I am just about to purchase it...
Thanks
Click to expand...

Hey Albert, technically, it looks like it's going to work. I haven't actually made a backup yet to it. The card sees the drive and Retrospect sees the drive and says I can write to it. That makes me think everything is working alright...but not 100% positive. I believe if I have any issues now, it'll be with Retrospect and not hardware issues. Be sure that when buying an SAS cable for the drive that you get one which is the correct SF8088 connector on both ends. I bought a 3Ware 2 meter SAS cable that was not the same cable as they had pictured on their website! At first I thought it was the company I bought it from sent me the wrong cable, but 3ware has it pictured incorrectly! Probably stick with a 1 meter cable for that very reason.



Matthew
 
So you haven't tried it yet ?:)
would you let me know when you do, so I can be 100% positive.
I am somehow worry; I have installed HPT 2322 in my Mac, which runs my Raid, hope it's not going to conflict with the Atto controller..
 
albert rudnicki said:
So you haven't tried it yet ?:)
would you let me know when you do, so I can be 100% positive.
I am somehow worry; I have installed HPT 2322 in my Mac, which runs my Raid, hope it's not going to conflict with the Atto controller..
Click to expand...

I've actually got the HPT 2322 also in my system and it doesn't seem to conflict with anything. I will grab the drive tomorrow and try and do a backup of the RED footage from my last shoot. Will let you know what happens.

Matthew
 
A lot of post houses that still exchange storage tapes between each other over the years have been using TAR archives. It's easy to restore on a stand alone tape drive with the appropriate drivers.
Click to expand...

I had a similar thought. Not knowing much about LTO in general, I'd like to ask: Is the tape format itself standard, and writable with tar? I hate the idea of lock-in to some proprietary format. Could I hook a compatible LTO drive to a Linux or OSX box, write to it with tar, and know that it could be extracted anywhere in the known universe, from now until the bombs are dropping and the CHUD people rise from the sewers to inherit the toxic remains? (Which is roughly when tar will no longer be available.)

Also - would this work for extracting single files?

I'm pretty sure even some commercial backup software can be made to write tar-chives. And Amanda as well, iirc - which is free, (and good, as far as I've heard).

Maybe Jeff or Thomas can speak to this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top