Talk:Tape library

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tape library article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was keep. -- Celestra (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual tape library should be merged into Tape library. One is simply a virtualized version of the other. There is no reason to have two articles. A section should be created in Tape library talking about VTL. Nemilar (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tape library and VTL are entirely different, VTL does not use any tapes. it is better to keep this page separate and let this page expand on its own. A VTL is not a virtualised version of a Tape library. in fact a VTL uses hard disks to record data at a much faster rate bu the longeveity acheived by Tape media cannot be acheived by a VTL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.149.145 (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A VTL is a virtualized version of a Tape Library. Hence "Virtual Tape Library." It takes virtualizes the storage of hard disks and presents it to clients in the form of tapes/tape drives/tape libraries. Yes, VTL and real tape are different. However they are without question related, and a VTL is without a doubt a virtualized version of a tape library. (Although I think this is irrelevant, I will state that a VTL can match the longevity of real tape, because a VTL will tend to use RAID storage. Yes, an individual tape will last much longer than an individual hard disk, but by keeping an array of disks alive by replacing drives as they die, a VTL's storage can last indefinitely). Nemilar (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Virtual Tape Library article separate. A “tape library” is actually an abstraction encompassing software, hardware and media that organize tape media resources into a useable whole. True, the physical implementation of the tape library can include physical media allocated to free-standing tape drives, physical media allocated to automated (robotic) tape libraries, or virtual media allocated to virtual volumes on virtual drives (stored on the disks of a virtual tape product). So, I agree that a virtual tape library is an example of a tape library. However, I see industry trending towards “appliance” thinking and packaging. Therefore, when ordinary users (rather than IT architects) think about the virtual tape library, they are probably thinking about it as a product, an appliance, a convenient box they will plug in and use. The concept of a tape library was born and raised in the mainframe environment where a proliferation of tapes for all kinds of jobs required highly disciplined controls. In the commodity computing environments tape are more focused on backup/archive and restore. I feel that users in these environments will relate to a “virtual tape library” as a product, but may not even be aware of a “tape library.” I work for a firm that produces mainframe tape management software which interfaces with all levels of physical, robotic and virtual tape resources. JohnCawley (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up interesting points. I definitely agree that VTL is/tends to be appliance-based. But I think it's likely that anyone administering a VTL has an understanding of tape/policy-based backup.. VTL emulates tape, therefore in order to use VTL you must understand tape (even if you don't understand that using VTL is essentially using virtual tape, you must understand the principles). You and I agree that, at least in your definition of a tape library as an abstraction encompassing software, hardware, and media, a VTL is a subset of Tape Library. So I don't really understand why you are opposed to making Virtual Tape Library a subsection of the Tape Library article. Could you clarify please? Nemilar (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Virtual Tape Library should be merged into Tape Library any more than Virtual Reality should be merged into Reality. A VTL isn't a kind of tape library, it is a kind of data storage virtualization. It just happens to be called VTL. Celestra (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal that Virtual tape library should be merged into Tape library is equivalent to merging VNC into Computer monitor, or Solid_state_drive into Disk_Drive. It should not be done. A tape library is essentially a robotic mechanism while VTL is a variation of a disk controller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.86.224 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barcode generator example

That site is not a verifiable, reliable source which supports the preceding text, so I removed the reference to it. I had earlier removed it as an example because it was presented as an example of a concept which needs no example. (Oh, so that's what they mean by free software.) The site doesn't even qualify as an external link; it seems to just be a vanity link and has no encyclopedic value. Please don't reinsert it without providing some meaningful arguments in its favor. Celestra (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you've improved this encyclopedia. Previously, if some reader wanted to learn about tape barcode labels (e.g. how does one look? what does one contain?) they risked stumbling upon that filthy site. I think they will be much better now. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun/StorageTek document doesn't support the preceding text, so it isn't an inline reference, nor is it in any way an example of software which produces barcode labels. It is also very focused on the solution StorageTek offers rather than presenting an overview of different barcode labels. On the positive side, it does present a variety of labels and discusses some of the generic problems of scanning barcode labels. I'll move it to a more appropriate place. Celestra (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tape Library vs Autoloader

I was surprised by the assertion in the article that tape libraries start at $10000 and that smaller devices are not tape libraries, but autoloaders.

Recently I've been working with small organisations for whom an affordable in-house solution for backup and archive for a few TB is to use LTO tape. They typically have devices containing two drives inside an enclosure holding between 20 - 48 cartridges, and they are invariably referred to as tape libraries. Vendors whose kit I've worked with are Tandberg Data and HPE.