"Denys Beauchemin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
> I would also urge HP to reconsider supporting SDLT, simply because of its
> backward compatibility with DLT-IV tapes.  I would also urge HP to have
> support for the DLT1 drive..  It is low-cost, as fast as a DDS-3 and
double
> the capacity of a DDS-4.  And to my mind, more reliable than DDS.
>
Although the ratio could have changed over the years,  when
DLTs first appeared about 10 years ago, the hard-error rate of a
DLT was 1-in-10^17 bits vs 1-in-10^14 bits for DDS -- 3 orders
of magnitude advantage for DLT (1992 figures).  Even more
impressive, the possibility of an undetected error in 1992 with DLT
was 1-in-10^27.  Since this would take several hundred billion
years to prove (with the drive running full time), we'll assume
this is a calculated figure.   I have seen several cases of undetected
errors (the worst kind IMO) with DDS technology in the last 10 years,
and that is not very impressive to me ..........

Winston K.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *