kim@mathcs.emory.edu (Kim Wallen {Psy}) (04/21/89)
Help. I have a 2meg 3B1 with a 40meg disk where the disk no longer spins. Power to the disk appears to be ok, but it no longer turns. A bit of background. This machine has been used for three years as a 24hr/day file server and was just recently taken off line. The machine was running fine until we stopped it and let it sit for 3 weeks. When we went back to turn it on the disk was nonfunctional. We have taken the cover off the disk to measure power and to try to spin the platter, but it won't come back to life. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Kim Wallen Psychology Department Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 (404) 727-4125 INTERNET: kim@unix.cc.emory.edu UUCP: {gatech decvax}!emory!kim BITNET: kim@emoryu1
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (04/23/89)
Sigh. Kim Wallen recites tales of woe re: his 3B1 with a 40MB HD. Without wishing to sound prejudiced, I bet his HD is either a Seagate or a Miniscribe. Seems it's time again for my bi-weekly "my drive don't spin no more" posting. It's gotten so bad, I now keep this file in a ram-disk and I have a keyboard function key dedicated to "M-X insert-file$/ram/seagate.s*cks" :-) :-) I hope the following information helps. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ] ========================= begin reposted material ========================= Eric Bergan comments about problems with his ST-251 hard drive ... There are inherent flaws in the design of the ST251 such that the drive motor will NOT spin due to the arms not coming out of park position (which they enter upon power-down of the drive). I have 10 drives (ST251) exhibiting this problem (on several different types of computers), and hundreds of others are now noticing similar problems with their ST251 drives. Following is a compendium of solutions and explanations; the problem is SO common with Seagate drives (even their new 3.5" puppies) that I keep a file with stuff like the following to simplify answering your (and others') questions. In *MY* opinion, the ONLY good Seagate drive is a dea... oops, sorry!, re-starting, the only good Seagate drive is the ST-4096 with the linear arm actuator. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ] ========================== begin included messages ========================== From: thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.att Subject: Re: HELP with 7300 hard disk PLEASE Date: 1 Nov 88 09:43:22 GMT Walt Novinger is having problems with his Seagate ST251 ... Welcome to the club. But, one question: does the drive SPIN? Don't laugh. I have a bunch of ST251 drives that do NOT spin up consistently and the first time that happened I started sweating icicles. My first thought was a "bad" controller card (the one that is bolted to the back of the drives), and I called Seagate Customer Support (in Florida; figure that one out) and discovered that all Seagate does is exchange drives. Not very useful if you want to retrieve data that hasn't been backed up (let THAT be a lesson!). Finally, persevered and managed to reach the Manager of QA at Seagate in Scotts Valley, CA, and was told essentially the same story: they don't repair drives, wouldn't send me a PC card, and they don't have spare parts. By this time, I had already discovered the drive wasn't spinning up. Being the curious sort, I started examining all aspects of the drive. Poked here, prodded there, uttered a few choice epithets, and was seriously considering the sure-fire-cure: dancing under a full moon in my Jockey shorts while swinging a dead chicken over my head! :-) Well, to make a long story short: I started idly twisting the stepper motor shaft using an Allen wrench, about 15 degrees each way. Decided to attempt to power up the drive one more time before chucking it out the window and over the fence when, LO!, whi-r-r-r-r-r-r. It SPUN! Twisted the shaft of another one, powered it up, and it, too, spun. Whew! Did I back up those disks quickly. First thing next morning, called Seagate (Scotts Valley) QA Manager and discussed my findings. An engineer was consulted and confirmed that the ST251 drive has "failsafes" to prevent main spindle rotation IF the arms don't come out of `park' during the power up sequence. My "twisting" the stepper motor shaft a bit must have loosened up whatever it was that prevented the arms coming out of park. Don't know what, since the drives are normally powered 24 hrs/day, 7 days/week, and they were off for only a few hours while I was experimenting with other aspects of the system. NOW: the interesting thing is, ALL of my ST251 have the same date code: 8707 (a big number stamped alongside the frame). But I've heard in other newsgroups of others having problems with the ST251 also, and the solution was the same "fix." BE FORWARNED: the "fix" is only temporary. The ones I still have continue to exhibit the problem occasionally upon power up. Once the drives are spinning, they operate fine. But I'm really disappointed about these problems and have switched almost exclusively now to other manufacturers (e.g. Maxtor) though I am having excellent performance from an ST157N. As near as I can determine, the problem ONLY exists with the ST251-0 (the "-0" is often identified by an "MLC-0" sticker); the ST251-1 (also MLC-1) drives don't (yet) appear to have such a problem (but perhaps it's too early for the problem to surface). For reference: the MLC-0 drives are the 39mS ones and the MLC-1 drives are the 28mS ones. SUMMARY: twist the stepper motor shaft a wee bit using a dowel, screwdriver, Allen wrench, whatever), power up the drive and get your data off it ASAP. As mine have shown, the drives will continue to present problems, so I'd suggest looking for a replacement HD before yours fails totally. Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad] From: jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) Newsgroups: comp.sys.att Subject: Re: HELP with 7300 hard disk PLEASE Date: 1 Nov 88 05:02:51 GMT In article <1311@plx.UUCP> walt@plx.UUCP (Walt Novinger ) writes: >My 7300's 40MB Seagate ST251 hard disk suddenly went south the other day, >and I have to get the data off it, if possible. I tried running the >diagnostics disk to test the drive, and it fails on the "recal" test. Are you absolutely sure it's spinning up? I have heard of drives where the baking mechanism stickes to the spindle on shutdown and the next time you power it up, it won't spin up. If it won't spin up, it won't try to move the heads. One solution was dropthe fron of the machine about 6" to jar it loose. I don't think I would recomend that. If it is spinning up, then the lack of recal could be several problems. Bad logic board on the drive. You should be able to get that board replaced and still get the data. BE WARNED if you try to send a drive back for service, even if you mark it to keep the drive part, they will most likely scrap it. The best solution is to get another drive of the same type, a spline head tool and swap the board yourself. The other thing keeping it from recaling might be soft. The diagnostic disk won't tell you the difference between 1. can't move the head to track 0, 2. can't get a track header on the lowest track, and 3. drive is missing the drive magic number. It could be that a tiny glitch has dinged the VHB (Volume Home Block). The bad news is that there isn't much in the way of low level utilities on the UNIXpc to go patching around with. The interactive device test is supposed to almost allow some of this, but it won't work for hard disks, only floppies. My suggestion if you want to see what's REALLY on the disk right now, is to put it on a PClone and get ahold of one of those super fantanstic hard drive programs that are out now. One of those should be able to show you more than you want to know and, at least tell you whether it's a hardware or magware problem. John -- John Bly Milton IV, jbm@uncle.UUCP, n8emr!uncle!jbm@osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu (614) h:294-4823, w:764-4272; MS-DOS is a beautiful flower that smells bad! From: mrm@sceard.UUCP (M.R.Murphy) Newsgroups: comp.sys.att Subject: Re: HELP with 7300 hard disk PLEASE Date: 2 Nov 88 16:42:57 GMT In article <10743@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >Walt Novinger is having problems with his Seagate ST251 ... We had the same problems with ST251-0 drives. Twisting the stepper motor shaft from the underside of the drive with a finger-tip works ok, and the twisting doesn't have to be more than a few degrees. I worry about moving the heads from the parked position, but it's better than going to a backup:-) From: walt@sixwbn.UUCP (Walt Novinger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.att Subject: My hard disk works! Thanks to all! Date: 6 Nov 88 00:05:07 GMT This is a quick note to all who responded to my plea for help with the "gone south" drive on my Unix PC. Several of you (e.g. Thad@cup.portal.com) suggested gently manipulating the stepper motor -- this did the trick. What's even more unbelievable is that when the system rebooted, there were *no* file system errors! I guess I've just been livin' right. Thanks again to all. Date: Mon, 5 Dec 88 13:29:33 MST From: Theo De Raadt <uunet!alberta!deraadt> To: calgary!portal!cup.portal.com!thad Subject: Re: Hard Disk Choice In-Reply-To: your article <12023@cup.portal.com> The drive problem has been encountered with ST251-1's as well. A buddy has seen it happen to lots of them. Actually, another friend had a real neat problem. The drive got "stuck", and he loosened it up, by taking the drive, holding it at the top, and rotating it. Just a little soft jerk. Then it worked. Of course, each time he turned it off, same thing. Mine was in the same batch, and it was loud enough to wake me on morning at 3:00 am in in my bedroom, the computer being two rooms over. Needless we replaced those with new 251-1's and have been happy as can be. <tdr. ========================== end of included messages =========================
danl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (daniel.r.levy) (04/24/89)
In article <17513@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > Sigh. Kim Wallen recites tales of woe re: his 3B1 with a 40MB HD. > > Without wishing to sound prejudiced, I bet his HD is either a Seagate or > a Miniscribe. $ grep -i miniscribe $A a Miniscribe. $ Could you, or anyone else in-the-know, please tell me what the deal is with the MINISCRIBE. Some time before I got my unix-pc, I asked on the net about hard disk problems (having vaguely remembered the exchange which you just reposted a summary of) and was duly told that indeed, the Seagate ST251 had a lot of lemons. And thus, when shopping for my unix-pc, I made damn sure that it did not have a Seagate in it. However, it has a 40 MB Miniscribe in it and now the above allusion to the Miniscribe has me worried, and a little consternated that I did not hear about the troubles with it as well, if indeed there are troubles with it at all. Is MINISCRIBE another Seagate product under a different name? Or, has it been having similar difficulties? (I note, per the grep above, that the articles you have reposted say nothing about the MINISCRIBE, other than your own comment.) I really need to know before it's too late. Thank you so very much. -- Dan'l Levy UNIX(R) mail: att!ttbcad!levy, att!cbnewsc!danl AT&T Bell Laboratories 5555 West Touhy Avenue Any opinions expressed in the message above are Skokie, Illinois 60077 mine, and not necessarily AT&T's.
wolfer@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Wolfson) (04/26/89)
In article <17513@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > Sigh. Kim Wallen recites tales of woe re: his 3B1 with a 40MB HD. > I would be interested in knowing for how many of these cases, the disk heads were not parked when the machines were shut down. I've said it before - nothing is guaranteed in this world, but if you EVER shut down and turn off a unix-pc without first parking the heads, you have to ask yourself a question -- "Do I feel lucky" ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- P. Wolfson "################################### att!ihuxy!wolfer ################################### ################"
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (04/26/89)
Without wishing to cause Daniel Levy too much concern ... In regards to Miniscribe, I've had two Miniscribe 8438 drives go belly up on me during the past 5 months (on another computer). The problem is NOT a "my drive don't spin" problem; I have these sitting on a shelf in my lab awaiting further analysis. Luckily (for me), there are several companies in this area (Silicon Valley) that do disk drive repair, and I may avail myself of their services. Also in regards to Miniscribe: have people forgotten so quickly the HORRIBLE problems with the IBM PC/AT when it first came out? The problems were flaky HDs, and the HDs were those manufactured by Miniscribe. Miniscribe is located in Longmont, Colorado, and is NOT affiliated with Seagate in any way. Now, on the positive side: I have a Miniscribe 6085 in my 3B1, and it has operated (almost) flawlessly for 2 years now, at 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. The "almost" is one sector that "grew bad" one morning; took a few minutes to fix that problem, and I'll be posting a (lengthy) treatise about sparing out bad blocks very shortly (I'm presently working 14-16 hours/day in prep for the DECUS/DEXPO coming up during the 2nd week in May). In conversation with several companies (the disk drive repair outfits), the problem with the non-spin Seagate drives is due to "stiction" caused by excessive chemical lubricant on the plated-media platters during manufacture. Their (the repair companies') solution is to replace the Seagate media with "normal" oxide media (for approx. $60 for an ST-251 drive). The Seagate stiction problem (lubricant meniscus preventing the heads leaving PARK position) seems to occur across the board with Seagate's 3-1/2" and 5-1/4" HDs manufactured using plated-media platters; the older ferric-oxide platter drives (such as the ST-225 drive) don't exhibit the problem. Seagate's problem is (was) a lack of proper QA; I understand they've recently taken steps to improve the situation. Miniscribe's problem seems to (also) be in the past (but it's a real pisser when it's one's own drive that exhibits the problem). As a general note in closing, and this *IS* a general note, I casually asked some people at the various disk drive repair companies what drives they put in their OWN computers, and 3 manufacturers' names clearly were in the majority: Maxtor, Quantum, and Micropolis. Conner and SONY were also spoken of highly, but there isn't much "track record" yet. Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
danl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (daniel.r.levy) (04/27/89)
You spoke of two different models of Miniscribe disks. Which one is the 40 megger? I haven't yet "raised the hood" on my unixpc to find out, and I'd rather not unless and until it is necessary. Thanks. -- Dan'l Levy UNIX(R) mail: att!ttbcad!levy, att!cbnewsc!danl AT&T Bell Laboratories 5555 West Touhy Avenue Any opinions expressed in the message above are Skokie, Illinois 60077 mine, and not necessarily AT&T's.
danl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (daniel.r.levy) (04/27/89)
> > Sigh. Kim Wallen recites tales of woe re: his 3B1 with a 40MB HD. > > > > > I would be interested in knowing for how many of these cases, the disk > heads were not parked when the machines were shut down. I've said it > before - nothing is guaranteed in this world, but if you EVER shut down > and turn off a unix-pc without first parking the heads, you have to ask > yourself a question -- "Do I feel lucky" ? From Floryan's explanation, it sounds like the blame lies elsewhere, i.e., the heads sticking to the media in park position due to gumming up by the lubricant, at least for the Seagates. That wouldn't be due to head crashes. For the Miniscribe, that's an unanswered question. The shutdown message warns the user to park the heads if the machine is going to be moved. This would seem to imply that parking the heads is unnecessary otherwise, though it does sound like a good idea. When I unpacked the system software, I could almost swear that in there was a loose sheet stating that rebooting the diagnostic disk to park the heads was not necessary on the 3B1, despite the message. However, looking through my manuals, I can't locate it now. I wonder, was I hallucinating or sump'n? Is there an ioctl() or other trick I can do while the UNIX system is running to park the disk heads? It sounds like it would be a good thing to do during extended idle times. -- Dan'l Levy UNIX(R) mail: att!ttbcad!levy, att!cbnewsc!danl AT&T Bell Laboratories 5555 West Touhy Avenue Any opinions expressed in the message above are Skokie, Illinois 60077 mine, and not necessarily AT&T's.
wjc@ho5cad.ATT.COM (Bill Carpenter) (04/27/89)
In article <586@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> danl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (daniel.r.levy) writes: >otherwise, though it does sound like a good idea. When I unpacked the system >software, I could almost swear that in there was a loose sheet stating that >rebooting the diagnostic disk to park the heads was not necessary on the 3B1, >despite the message. However, looking through my manuals, I can't locate it A lot of 7300's shipped with drives that didn't autopark the heads when powered off. Thus the message during shutdown about parking them. (I defer to others about whether this is needed for shutdowns when the machine won't be moved. Couldn't hurt.) Most (maybe all?) 3b1's shipped with drives that did autopark the heads on powerdown. That's why it's not necessary to do it via the diagnostics disk. This is a feature of the drive, not the machine. If you're shopping for a drive, this is definitely a feature you want. (If your drive makes that big clunk when you hit the power switch, that's the autopark happening.) -- -- Bill Carpenter att!ho5cad!wjc or attmail!bill
jeff@cjsa.WA.COM (Jeffery Small) (04/27/89)
In article <586@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, danl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (daniel.r.levy) writes: > When I unpacked the system > software, I could almost swear that in there was a loose sheet stating that > rebooting the diagnostic disk to park the heads was not necessary on the 3B1, > despite the message. However, looking through my manuals, I can't locate it > now. I wonder, was I hallucinating or sump'n? > I have had many discussions with all manner of support people for the unix-pc and in all cases it was confirmed that the 40Mb and 67Mb drives on the 3B1 will automatically park their heads. This is clearly audible on the 67Mb drive which gives a loud THUNK when you power down. My Hitachi 40Mb drive is quieter but you can hear it park too if you listen. The 10 & 20Mb drives on the UNIX-PC versions must be manually parked with the diagnostic diskette. -- Jeffery Small (206) 485-5596 uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp C. Jeffery Small and Associates !cjsa!jeff 19112 152nd Ave NE - Woodinville, WA 98072 uunet!nwnexus
bob@rush.howp.com (Bob Ames) (04/28/89)
In article <2947@ihuxy.ATT.COM> wolfer@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Wolfson) writes: > >I would be interested in knowing for how many of these cases, the disk >heads were not parked when the machines were shut down. I've said it >before - nothing is guaranteed in this world, but if you EVER shut down >and turn off a unix-pc without first parking the heads, you have to ask >yourself a question -- "Do I feel lucky" ? And I've said it before. 3B1s which still have the original full size disk that came with their unit DO NOT NEED TO BE PARKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Only if you (or someone else) has changed the drive and didn't use the same type may you need to park the heads when shutting down. ALL ORIGINAL AT&T 3B1 DRIVES ARE SELF PARKING! Ever notice the Ker-Chunk sound when you power off your machine? BTW: This is in the 3.51 addendum around the last page, and confirmed with the hotline that ALL 3B1s are applicable, not just ones running 3.51. Bob Bob Ames The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, NORML "Pot is the world's best source of complete protein, alcohol fuel, and paper, is the best fire de-erosion seed, and is america's largest cash crop." - USDA bob@rush.cts.com or ncr-sd!rush!bob@nosc.mil or rutgers!ucsd!ncr-sd!rush!bob 619-743-2546 "We each pay a fabulous price for our visions of paradise," Rush
mark@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Mark Sienkiewicz) (04/28/89)
In article <17606@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >Also in regards to Miniscribe: have people forgotten so quickly the HORRIBLE >problems with the IBM PC/AT when it first came out? The problems were flaky >HDs, and the HDs were those manufactured by Miniscribe. > I remember the PC/AT's. They came with CMI 20 meg drives that died in about a year (give or take 6 months) of daily operation. I have a pile of these at work. I never found a Miniscribe in an AT. The Miniscribes in my Unixpc's still work just fine.
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (04/29/89)
In article <17606@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
=Also in regards to Miniscribe: have people forgotten so quickly the HORRIBLE
=problems with the IBM PC/AT when it first came out? The problems were flaky
=HDs, and the HDs were those manufactured by Miniscribe.
=
Are you sure? I thought that the original flaky AT HDs were CMI drives.
Pete
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (04/29/89)
Yikes!!! If I inadvertently mis-maligned Miniscribe re: my comments about their drives being the ones in the original IBM PC/AT, I hereby publicly apologize. Sincerely. But looking at my notes (even with my chicken-scrawled handwriting), I can clearly read "Miniscribe." To set the record straight: I've *NEVER* owned an IBM PC (or any clone thereof) so I've never had the opportunity to open one up and see just what IS in the box. But, with my notes at hand, and my personal experience with (all) two of my Miniscribe 8438 drives going belly-up), I tend to believe what I have written. Again, the Miniscribe 6085 in my 3B1 has operated (almost) flawlessly for nearly 2 years now. But, the *ONLY* drives (in any computer) that have ever "died" on me have been Seagates' and Miniscribes'. The earliest Maxtors (both XT-2140 and XT-2190) have been running for years now, and the other Maxtor XT-3280 and XT-3380 drives just keep on truckin'. And I'm also running Quantums and Conners now with fantastic results. And I really like the Maxtor XT-8760 (760 MB UF, 680 MB formatted) drive that I "played" with last month. Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (04/29/89)
Re: Daniel Levy's second question about Miniscribe ... I have no idea what 40MB Miniscribe drives might be used in the UNIXPC. The two 8438 drives that went "belly up" were being used in two Amigas. The drives were purchased new during July 1987. The 8438 is a 30MB (2,7 RLL) drive Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (04/29/89)
Again, re: Daniel Levy's questions ... Most modern HDs have autopark capability on power down. The printed docs that accompanied my UNIXPCs clearly stated the HD does NOT need to be parked (manually) prior to moving (the system). Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (04/29/89)
And yet again re: Daniel Levy's questions ... Doesn't make much sense to attempt to park the HD's heads on one's UNIXPC since the system will be moving the heads again within an hour or so to check the /usr/spool/uucp directory (unless one has cleaned out all the stuff in the crontab file). I run my computers 24 hrs/day, 7 days/week. The computers last and last and last. The two MOST dangerous events in the life of a computer (and a HD) are the power-up and the power-down events. Based on my personal examination of the UNIXPC, you should EXPECT 5 years of continuous operation when the system is powered up continously. HOWEVER: to prevent fartleberries accumulating in the file system, it IS a good idea to "shutdown" and "reboot" every week or so ... but keep the power applied to the system. A continuously running system, at thermal equilibrium, is a happy system! :-) Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (04/29/89)
The 10MB and 20MB HDs that accompanied the UNIXPC were NOT "autoparking". Every 40MB and "67 MB" HD that I've seen in a UNIXPC has been an autoparking harddisk. Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (04/30/89)
Uh, Bob -- just as most people say "baud" when they mean "bits per second", most people use "3B1" as an all-inclusive noun meaning all Unix PCs, i.e. the "real" 3B1 as well as the 7300. The 7300 HDs do not auto-park. Pete -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
bob@rush.howp.com (Bob Ames) (05/01/89)
In article <694@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > >Uh, Bob -- just as most people say "baud" when they mean "bits per >second", most people use "3B1" as an all-inclusive noun meaning all Unix >PCs, i.e. the "real" 3B1 as well as the 7300. The 7300 HDs do not auto-park. I don't. I use UNIXPC when I wish to refer generically to the type of computer. If I wish to refer to 10/20M machines, I say 7300. If I wish to refer to full-height machines, I say 3B1. Perhaps I should have included a mention that the 7300s are different from 3B1s. You are correct, and I was more clear in an internal memo, that the half-height drives DO NOT autopark. The word UNIX PC is on the front of all production UNIX PCs of which I'm aware. Some early pre-production models had PC 7300 on the lower right under the monitor. Bob Bob Ames The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, NORML "Pot is the world's best source of complete protein, alcohol fuel, and paper, is the best fire de-erosion seed, and is america's largest cash crop." - USDA bob@rush.cts.com or ncr-sd!rush!bob@nosc.mil or rutgers!ucsd!ncr-sd!rush!bob 619-743-2546 "We each pay a fabulous price for our visions of paradise," Rush
cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann) (05/06/89)
In article <17733@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: ... | HOWEVER: to prevent fartleberries accumulating in the file system, it IS a | good idea to "shutdown" and "reboot" every week or so ... but keep the power | applied to the system. Do these actually accumulate on the UNIX-PC? I try to keep my system up for as long as possible (the only problem I've found so far is that /etc/wmgr accumulates memory, so you have to kill and restart it every now and then), and after routine shutdowns and startups, fsck never seems to find any problems. Have people observed the infamous SysV disappearing-inodes problem on their machines? Are there other FS problems people have encountered? -- "Oh BLESS you, sir! The ANGEL OF DEATH was after me just as SURE as you're standing there, yes he WAS!" Chris Siebenmann uunet!{utgpu!moore,attcan!telly}!ziebmef!cks cks@ziebmef.UUCP or .....!utgpu!{,ontmoh!,ncrcan!brambo!}cks
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (05/06/89)
In article <1989May5.150438.13740@ziebmef.uucp> cks@ziebmef.UUCP (Chris Siebenmann) writes: |In article <17733@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: |... || HOWEVER: to prevent fartleberries accumulating in the file system, it IS a || good idea to "shutdown" and "reboot" every week or so ... but keep the power || applied to the system. | | Do these actually accumulate on the UNIX-PC? I try to keep my system |up for as long as possible (the only problem I've found so far is that |/etc/wmgr accumulates memory, so you have to kill and restart it every |now and then), and after routine shutdowns and startups, fsck never |seems to find any problems. Have people observed the infamous SysV |disappearing-inodes problem on their machines? Are there other FS |problems people have encountered? I have never run up against the problem, even though I've had the machine up for months at a time, with *lots* of disk activity - news & many uucp connections exercise a disk drive & file system pretty good. The main problem seems to be that fsck *always* runs twice at reboot time. I'm not sure why that is, but I seem to recall that it did not happen "at the beginning", but started happening fairly early on. Also, the quota system has never worked 8^) - I guess that 2nd drive will help whenever the interface is up & running... Cheers, -- __ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \cc/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< >_ "Where is Newton Minow now that we need him?" - T. S. Eliot
gbm@gbmatl.UUCP (gary mckenney) (05/08/89)
In article <480@becker.UUCP} bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes: }In article <1989May5.150438.13740@ziebmef.uucp> cks@ziebmef.UUCP (Chris Siebenmann) writes: } } I have never run up against the problem, even though } I've had the machine up for months at a time, with } *lots* of disk activity - news & many uucp connections } exercise a disk drive & file system pretty good. } The main problem seems to be that fsck *always* runs } twice at reboot time. I'm not sure why that is, but I } seem to recall that it did not happen "at the beginning", } but started happening fairly early on. } Also, the quota system has never worked 8^) - I guess } that 2nd drive will help whenever the interface is up } & running... According to the rc script in /etc fsck will force a reboot and therefore a second fsck if it finds problems through the first fsck. In other words if there is a permenent problem found by fsck I don't think you will be able to boot up your machine.
gil@limbic.UUCP (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (05/09/89)
In article <480@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker [and others]) write: > The main problem seems to be that fsck *always* runs > twice at reboot time. I'm not sure why that is, but I > seem to recall that it did not happen "at the beginning", > but started happening fairly early on. If you look at the stock /etc/rc in the UNIX-pc, I believe that it redirects the output from fsck to a file called /etc/.lastfsck. If this is the case, the fsck is writing to the filesystem while it is being checked, which is not a real good idea. If there are enough "possible file size errors", it might be enough to fill the file beyond a physical disk block and cause the machine to be rebooted and fsck'd again. This would be because the fsck found a file (/etc/.lastfsck) become "sick" on the root filesystem while it was doing the fsck. To solve this problem, you could redirect the fsck output to a window (which you may not see in time). You could also make the fsck execute in non- windowed mode (like I do) without the -y option so that any problems in the filesystem can be modified individually before rebooting. This does take some practice and understanding about the filesystem, but I've seen many a UNIX-pc get munged by fscks gone berzerk. In any event, to use the /etc/fsck in non-windowed mode, you have to do the fsck before loading the window driver at boot time .. this means modifying your /etc/rc file. If you don't feel comfortable doing this, then don't. There could be some other reason for the multiple-reboot...this is but one. ------- | Gil Kloepfer, Jr. | ICUS Software Systems/Bowne Management Systems (depending on where I am) | {decuac,boulder,talcott,sbcs}!icus!limbic!gil or gil@icus.islp.ny.us