jessea@dynasys.UUCP ( Sysadmin.) (11/16/89)
I'm thinking about purchasing a Seagate ST-296N and I would like to know what a good SCSI controller would be. I am running an Everex 386/16 and would like this to be compatible with SCO Xenix and AT+T Unix. I would also like the ability to add an SCSI tape drive in the future and perhaps another SCSI hard drive as well (2 hard drives AND a tape drive). Can anyone give me any pointers here? -- Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - (901)382-1705 Internet: jessea@dynasys.UU.NET 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 UUCP: uunet!dynasys!jessea
swatt@cup.portal.com (Steven Edward Watt) (11/18/89)
The SCO Sys V/386 support of the Adaptek 1540 is pleasantly clean... I now have 3 drives in my system (a Rose Hill '386/20), 2 of which are ST-506, the other is SCSI. The SCSI drive is a Rodime 1140 (I think...) and the filesystem transfer rates (for Acer file system) seem to be around 300k/sec. Almost as good as the DECStation 2100 I use at work. Impressive, on the whole... OBTW: Does anybody know of some good SCSI tape drives, preferably less than $800, > 100MB capacity? Steve Watt swatt@cup.portal.com ...!ucbvax!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!swatt
davely@mcrware.UUCP (Dave Lyons) (11/22/89)
In article <24171@cup.portal.com> swatt@cup.portal.com (Steven Edward Watt) writes: > > [stuff deleted] > > OBTW: Does anybody know of some good SCSI tape drives, preferably >less than $800, > 100MB capacity? > >Steve Watt >swatt@cup.portal.com ...!ucbvax!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!swatt Here at Microware we use a fair number of Archive 2150S drives. They have a 150MB capacity, can read QIC-24, QIC-120 and QIC-150 and can write QIC-120 and QIC-150. We pay around $650 when we buy in 1-2 quantity. We've had fairly good luck with them (no dead drives or people cussing out Archive engineers and/or their mothers). We've bought around 15 of them so far so on the whole I'd say our experience has been a 8^) one. Sorry if I ramble a bit but our software won't post unless there's more new news than old news. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Lyons - ...!sun!mcrware!davely | On Second though let's not go to My employer laughs at my opinions. | Camelot... 'Tis a silly place -------------------------------------------------------------------------
larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) (11/27/89)
From article <21@dynasys.UUCP>, by jessea@dynasys.UUCP ( Sysadmin.): > > I'm thinking about purchasing a Seagate ST-296N and I would like to know what > a good SCSI controller would be. I am running an Everex 386/16 and would like > this to be compatible with SCO Xenix and AT+T Unix. I would also like the > ability to add an SCSI tape drive in the future and perhaps another SCSI hard > drive as well (2 hard drives AND a tape drive). Can anyone give me any > pointers here? Jesse, I just posted a rather long article (72 lines) on how happy I am with an Adaptec AHA1542 SCSI controller. If you would like more information, or have questions, call me at Centel (703) 758-7000 or email to me at uunet\!grebyn\!macom1\!Larry. I just can't say enough good things about this controller. -- Larry Taborek ..!uunet!grebyn!macom1!larry Centel Federal Systems larry@macom1.UUCP 11400 Commerce Park Drive Reston, VA 22091-1506 My views do not reflect those of Centel 703-758-7000
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (12/01/89)
In article <4976@macom1.UUCP> larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) writes:
<From article <21@dynasys.UUCP>, by jessea@dynasys.UUCP ( Sysadmin.):
<>
<> I [want to add SCSI to] an Everex 386/16 and would like
<> this to be compatible with SCO Xenix and AT+T Unix. I would also like the
<> ability to add an SCSI tape drive in the future and perhaps another SCSI hard
<> drive as well (2 hard drives AND a tape drive). Can anyone give me any
<> pointers here?
<
<I just posted a rather long article (72 lines) on how happy I am
<with an Adaptec AHA1542 SCSI controller.
<I just can't say enough good things about this controller.
The only downside being that AT&T nor INTEL are delivering a UNIX that can
use the SCSI controller, Adaptec 1542A or otherwise. It is, in my opinion,
a serious deficiency in their product offerings.
kEITHe
hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) (12/02/89)
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: >The only downside being that AT&T nor INTEL are delivering a UNIX that can >use the SCSI controller, Adaptec 1542A or otherwise. It is, in my opinion, >a serious deficiency in their product offerings. I have in my hand a Chantal SCSI driver for Intel Unix/386 ver. 3.2 dated November 10, 1989. It uses the Adaptec 1542A. Keith Henson (sorry, but I don't have the Intel Unix to try it out, but the ISC version works ok)
gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (12/07/89)
In article <24631@cup.portal.com> hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes: >keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: >>The only downside being that AT&T nor INTEL are delivering a UNIX that can >>use the SCSI controller, Adaptec 1542A or otherwise. It is, in my opinion, >>a serious deficiency in their product offerings. >I have in my hand a Chantal SCSI driver for Intel Unix/386 ver. 3.2 dated >November 10, 1989. It uses the Adaptec 1542A. Keith Henson I don't think this is an answer to the original question. In order to be able to install on a SCSI drive with a particular controller, the appropriate driver needs to be in the UNIX on the install floppy. Although I haven't tried to do it, you can probably install first on an "AT" style drive (ESDI/ST506), then build a kernel that can mount a SCSI drive, then move everything over to the SCSI drive. There is some magic necessary to build a bootable SCSI drive, and I don't think you'll find this proceedure documented anywhere. In particular, you need to change the file /etc/conf/cf.d/sassign to have the major number of your SCSI disk driver instead of Interactive's number before building the kernel you install on the SCSI disk. By the way, is there anyone else that is upset at how both Interactive and SCO each have an undocumented kludge that pulls all there disk drivers under a single "psuedo-driver" so that no one else can reasonably write a driver compatible with it? Does anyone at Interactive want to defend this kludge? Gerry Gleason