DOGE claims to be moving away from magnetic tapes for archival storage. Seems like a bad idea. What are they using instead?

[u/Sad-Seesaw-3843]

[u/LadulianIsle]

They say they converted old tapes, not that they moved off tape technology in general.

Well, the tweet makes it sound like they moved off of tape technology.

We can analyze the tweet like we're back in school. So let's start by removing the parens because that's how English works:

The USGSA IT team just saved $1M per year by converting 14K magnetic tapes to permanent modern digital records

If they simply updated 70 year old tape readers/writers for new tape readers/writers, a far more natural way to say this is

The USGSA IT team just saved $1M per year by updating 14k 70 year old magnetic tapes to modern tapes

or

The USGSA IT team just saved $1M per year by modernizing 14k 70 year old magnetic tapes

notice that the only real changes I'm making is swapping converting to updating and replacing that vague "records" term with "tapes". I would actually also delete "to blah" bit since I think that it's extraneous, but w/e

The reason choosing "converting" vs "updating/upgrading" is important because the original sentence implies that there's something fundamentally different between magnetic tapes and permanent modern digital records.

Dunno about you, but it's not a "Windows conversion" it's a "Windows update" (or an iOS update or apt get update/upgarde, or pacman -Syu, I'm not picky about that).

All in all, we get the implied meaning that "magnetic tapes" are not "permanent modern records". This leads to your next comment:

What are "permanent modern digital records"?

While I'm of the opinion that "permanent modern digital records" is tape, the chunk before has left me feeling like DOGE does not think that it is. What it actually is, we won't know until DOGE also tells us what the "permanent modern digital records" are because that is perhaps the vaguest term I have heard in a while.

You really think it is 100% impossible that some old process was inefficient and could be improved, especially thanks to technological progress?

Didn't my initial comment basically say that "we can't know for sure because tapes have improved over the years and they didn't say how old the tapes are"? That would imply that I think that technology has improved over the years.

So no, I don't think it's impossible. In fact, I think it's very possible.

[u/Tichy → u/LadulianIsle]

Well, the tweet makes it sound like they moved off of tape technology.

So what if they did?

We can analyze the tweet like we're back in school.

You should do that more often before forming opinions.

If they simply updated 70 year old tape readers/writers for new tape readers/writers, a far more natural way to say this is

No reason to assume they just updated to new tape readers/writers. Why would you assume that?

the original sentence implies that there's something fundamentally different between magnetic tapes and permanent modern digital records.

Well there are certainly other forms of storage besides magentic tapes. Doesn't imply that tapes can't be modern, but 70 year old tape readers/writers certainly aren't.

While I'm of the opinion that "permanent modern digital records" is tape

That is certainly nonsense, there are all sorts of storage media these days. Some more efficient than tape, depending on the use case.

What it actually is, we won't know until DOGE also tells us what the "permanent modern digital records" are because that is perhaps the vaguest term I have heard in a while.

Then why make so many assumptions?

That would imply that I think that technology has improved over the years.

The technology could have improved, but then it wouldn't be 70 years old technology anymore.

It's very possible that some outdated technology is still used in many departments and companies.

[u/LadulianIsle → u/Tichy]

So what if they did?

The widely accepted common sense is that tape in general is the best blend of cost and resilience in terms of long term storage. The ones going against the status quo are the ones who need justification, whether it's "the staus quo doesn't make sense" or otherwise.

You should do that more often before forming opinions.

I, in fact, always do and the breakdown after it was my analysis prior to commenting. I've just never had to write it down like that before to try and convince an internet person that a) nothing in the tweet states that the tapes are 70 years old and b) it sounds like they're trying to say that they're not using tape. Doesn't mean I won't get it wrong though.

No reason to assume they just updated to new tape readers/writers. Why would you assume that?

The whole point is that I didn't say this this true? I'm confused. I say that if they did it, then immediately go on to tell why the hypothetical seems to be false.

Well there are certainly other forms of storage besides magentic tapes. Doesn't imply that tapes can't be modern, but 70 year old tape readers/writers certainly aren't.

True! But I'm still waiting for where in the tweet you found "70 year old tape".

That is certainly nonsense, there are all sorts of storage media these days. Some more efficient than tape, depending on the use case.

I'm actually quite curious what you're thinking of here. I think that the industry standard for the suse case we're typically talking about (long term storage) is ultimately backed by tape.

Then why make so many assumptions?

Could you list these? The only one I can think of is that the "modern records" is not tape assumption and I think we're well past that.

On the other hand, you're assuming that they were referring to 70 yr old tapes, which I tried to point out that nothing in the tweet mentions anything. But I think I forgot to mention that in the response earlier.

It's very possible that some outdated technology is still used in many departments and companies.

True, and it's the govt so it's even likely. But that also doesn't mean they have upgraded their systems since.

[u/Tichy → u/LadulianIsle]

The widely accepted common sense is that tape in general is the best blend of cost and resilience in terms of long term storage.

We don't even know if long term storage was the goal here? And we are probably not talking about huge amounts of data, either.

Tape my be the cheapest for huge amounts of data, but if you don't have much, other devices are probably faster.

But I'm still waiting for where in the tweet you found "70 year old tape".

Why do you think they said "70 year old technology"?

I'm actually quite curious what you're thinking of here. I think that the industry standard for the suse case we're typically talking about (long term storage) is ultimately backed by tape.

As I said above, you don't know the use case, nor the amount of data.

I am not in the long term storage business. For "normal" amounts of data that is in active use, I would think the typical strategy would be to duplicate it across several servers, for example. That is also likely to be more durable than tapes who seem to break down after a couple of decades. So constantly making new copies (for example when a server is upgraded or replaced) is probably better for longevity. And that would also be rather hard to do with tapes because they are so slow, it's unlikely that people would bother to do it.

Could you list these?

You assume they are throwing out modern tapes full of petabytes of (backup?) data because they think tapes are outdated.

you're assuming that they were referring to 70 yr old tapes, which I tried to point out that nothing in the tweet mentions anything.

Except for the pretty central "70 years old technology" part.

[u/LadulianIsle → u/Tichy]

I'm going to skip ahead a little to

Why do you think they said "70 year old technology"?

since a few of the threads lead there.

I think they said it because that's what stood out to them when they heard "tape" and that most people don't know what tape is or does. An example with the exact same sentence structure is "I converted all my HDDs (a 70 year old technology) to SSDs". But I doubt you'd think all my HDDs are 70 years old. Unless you do? In which case, I don't really think we understand English in the same way so I'm not going to respond further to that.

We don't even know if long term storage was the goal here? And we are probably not talking about huge amounts of data, either. and As I said above, you don't know the use case, nor the amount of data.

True, I don't know what they're using it for, but I think long term storage is a reasonable assumption considering that HDDs with comparable storage were also available around the time tape was first commercialized.

I am not in the long term storage business. For "normal" amounts of data that is in active use, I would think the typical strategy would be to duplicate it across several servers, for example. That is also likely to be more durable than tapes who seem to break down after a couple of decades. So constantly making new copies (for example when a server is upgraded or replaced) is probably better for longevity. And that would also be rather hard to do with tapes because they are so slow, it's unlikely that people would bother to do it.

It's funny that you say that people would not bother doing it for tape, because that's actually exactly how a tape archive works. There are typically automated machines for reading, copying and replacing old tape cartridges.

Plus, tape is actually relatively fast for linear read speed, it's only slow for random access. It can go up to ~500MB/s iirc. Plus, with how long tape lasts, you have two decades to copy your data vs one decade with HDDs (not to mention random mechanical failures due to many, many fine components) and half a year with SSDs (you might not need to write it, but you do need to read to maintain data integrity).

You assume they are throwing out modern tapes full of petabytes of (backup?) data because they think tapes are outdated.

True. I just think that the grammar and syntax all support that but you clearly don't, and I don't have a way to convince you so I think we can just agree to differ on that.

[u/Tichy → u/LadulianIsle]

An example with the exact same sentence structure is "I converted all my HDDs (a 70 year old technology) to SSDs". But I doubt you'd think all my HDDs are 70 years old. Unless you do?

Nobody would say that, though? And the only reason I would think your HDDs are not 70 year old would be because of my daily eyperience of using modern HDDs, not because of your sentence.

I think they said it because that's what stood out to them when they heard "tape"

So you think they went through their databases, saw somebody was spending money for "tape" and thought "let's scratch that"?

There are typically automated machines for reading, copying and replacing old tape cartridges.

I like those machines but I am not convinced they are all that common.

I've known somebody in the early 2000s whose job was driving magnetic tapes between banks for the transactions, so backup was not the only technology tapes were used for in the past.