denny@pnet01.cts.com (Dennis Anderson) (10/30/90)
I bought a 2000HD in March and a friend of mine bought a 590 to go with her
500 at about the same time. We both are getting very good use of our systems
but have run into a problem. My friend got ahold of a 20 meg SCSI drive and
power supply. We cannot get the 2091 or the 590 to recognize this drive. The
drive works fine on anouther friends 1000 using a Supra controller. When
asking around for help we were told by SEVERAL Amiga dealers that the Roms in
both the 2091 and 590 are not able to handle MORE THAN ONE SCSI DRIVE. Is this
true??? We were told that our machines would NOT be able to be repaired under
waranty with new roms, is this true??? If what we are hearing is true then we
are very angry!!! The ads for both the 2091 and 590 state that UP TO 7 SCSI
DRIVES may be daisy chained from the controller. If this does not work then
the required upgrade to do so should be done for free no matter when our
computers were bought as this is false advertising. If it is an innocent
mistake then Commodore should still fix it free as that was how our
controllers were advertised to work. If Commodore sees fit not to do this rom
change free then thier credibility is not good. This sounds like the old
Commodore that let ite cutomers do its hardware testing. I thought Commodore
was trying to change??? Please respond as both of us are unhappy with the
answeres we recieved. What is worse is that friend is a demonstrater of
Commodore cumputers at a local Navy Exchange and right now she can't recommend
any Amiga periferal with good contience. Hope you can shed some light on our
problem and that we have heard wrong!
Dennis Andersonken@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Farinsky - CATS) (10/31/90)
In article <5357@crash.cts.com> denny@pnet01.cts.com (Dennis Anderson) writes: >...My friend got ahold of a 20 meg SCSI drive and >power supply. We cannot get the 2091 or the 590 to recognize this drive. The >drive works fine on anouther friends 1000 using a Supra controller... What happens when you swap the drive with the internal drive? Does it work if it is the only drive on the chain? What kind of drive is it? If you bring up HDToolBox, does the drive show? Is the SCSI ID of the drive set to a different number than the internal drive? -- -- Ken Farinsky - CATS - (215) 431-9421 - Commodore Business Machines uucp: ken@cbmvax.commodore.com or ...{uunet,rutgers}!cbmvax!ken bix: kfarinsky
erick@CSUFresno.EDU (Eric Keisler) (10/31/90)
In article <5357@crash.cts.com> denny@pnet01.cts.com (Dennis Anderson) writes: >I bought a 2000HD in March and a friend of mine bought a 590 to go with her >500 at about the same time. We both are getting very good use of our systems >but have run into a problem. My friend got ahold of a 20 meg SCSI drive and >power supply. We cannot get the 2091 or the 590 to recognize this drive. The >drive works fine on anouther friends 1000 using a Supra controller. When >asking around for help we were told by SEVERAL Amiga dealers that the Roms in >both the 2091 and 590 are not able to handle MORE THAN ONE SCSI DRIVE. Is this >true??? > ... > ... > Dennis Anderson Well, from my experience, it isn't true. I got my A2500/30 back in feb. Last week I hooked a 120mb Rodime drive to the external SCSI port of my 2091. After some work with the 2091 HDToolBox utility, I got everything setup just fine. As a matter of fact, I've since used the Rodime SCSI drive to load software onto a dozen or so Amiga 2500/30's (with 2091/quantum combos) in one of the computing labs here that I support. Some configuration notes and gotchas: Since my drive was not of the default drive types in HDToolbox, I had to go into HDToolBox, and use "Change Drive Type". Then I selected "Define New Drive Type" and clicked on "Read Configuration From Drive". HDToolBox had no problem getting the drive config info from the drive. At this point, be sure to set "Supports Reselection?" to "NO". This is because there is a bug (2091, ROM, or driver, I don't know which) that surfaces when you have two (or more) drives talking on the scsi bus with 'reselection' enabled. I ran into this bug early-on when trying to copy one disk to another. The 2091 and drives went into a lock-up condition. Resetting the reselection param via HDToolbox eliminated the problem. To me, it looks like the "rumour" that the 2091 can't handle multiple SCSI units is bunk. Keep in mind that there are many ways you can shoot yourself in the foot when interfacing multiple SCSI systems: Have you terminated the the bus? (termintors installed on last device) Did you set the SCSI ID's for each unit correctly? Right cables? Are all the SCSI devices compatible with each other (talk the same SCSI?) Do *all* the software config params check-out? (i.e.: read the 2091 manual) Hope this helps... --- Eric Keisler, University Computer Services, CSU Fresno erick@zimmer.ucs.csufresno.edu erick@csufres.csufresno.edu
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (10/31/90)
In article <5357@crash.cts.com> denny@pnet01.cts.com (Dennis Anderson) writes: >I bought a 2000HD in March and a friend of mine bought a 590 to go with her >500 at about the same time. We both are getting very good use of our systems >but have run into a problem. My friend got ahold of a 20 meg SCSI drive and >power supply. We cannot get the 2091 or the 590 to recognize this drive. The >drive works fine on anouther friends 1000 using a Supra controller. When >asking around for help we were told by SEVERAL Amiga dealers that the Roms in >both the 2091 and 590 are not able to handle MORE THAN ONE SCSI DRIVE. Is this >true??? It's not true in any way, shape or form. The 2091 and 590 support more than one SCSI drive. 1) You need to properly terminate the SCSI bus for more than one drive to work. (A SCSI bus needs to be terminated at each end, and no more than at each end. This may involve removing terminating resistors from the middle drives) 2) You need to make sure that the SCSI ID address of each drive is different. (this involves changing jumpers on the drive) 3) You need to use HDToolbox to tell the system about the drives. (remember to SAVE CHANGES TO DRIVES on all drives that HDtoolBox says are changed) (And, for now, make sure that the reselection option in 'advanced options' of hdtoolbox is OFF for each of the drives, because reselection is not currently supported.) The bottom line is that it does work. Please make sure you've followed all of the above steps. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
stan@phx.mcd.mot.com (Stan Fisher) (10/31/90)
>drive works fine on anouther friends 1000 using a Supra controller. When >asking around for help we were told by SEVERAL Amiga dealers that the Roms in >both the 2091 and 590 are not able to handle MORE THAN ONE SCSI DRIVE. Is this >true??? We were told that our machines would NOT be able to be repaired under >waranty with new roms, is this true??? If what we are hearing is true then we >are very angry!!! The ads for both the 2091 and 590 state that UP TO 7 SCSI >DRIVES may be daisy chained from the controller. If this does not work then >the required upgrade to do so should be done for free no matter when our >computers were bought as this is false advertising. If it is an innocent >mistake then Commodore should still fix it free as that was how our >controllers were advertised to work. If Commodore sees fit not to do this rom (stuff deleted) > Dennis Anderson I know many of us 2091 owners (590 too) have experienced this problem.. I asked a while back on the net about the SCSI bus hang problem (multiple drives on the buss going poof) and was told to disable the reselection option in the HDTOOLBOX program's advanced options area. This was "supposed to fix the problem" which in reality is only a patch workaround to reduce the occurance of the problem. The REAL problem is that Commodore got a batch of bad Western Digital SCSI controller chips with reselection problems and is trying to avoid doing the right thing and fixing everyones boards with new controller chips! I also was told that the firmware (ROMS) had been updated and were available at local dealers.. I didn't realize at that time that the firmware change was only to fix the location zero bug that CBM had left in the file system handler in ROM. I went to the dealer with the problem... (a mistake I now know). The dealer said, "Yes the new firmware will fix up the location zero bug and the SCSI reselect problem and fix you right up there, yesiree". Much to my dismay the price for fixing a CBM propigated problem was to be somewhere around $30 - $40 for the ROMs and if I wanted them to install them tack on another $30 - $35 !!! I bought the chips and installed them myself. Now some time has passed and I still have occasional SCSI buss hangs. I got mad enough to attempt to get some resolution to the problem from Commodore... I called cust. support and chewed on their ear for a while and the guy said he'd have someone call me back with the answer. About 1 week later I did get a call. This person said another rev. of the firmware was just about ready, and when it got to the dealers, it would be offered as a free upgrade. I wanted to know how they planned to fix the hardware problem with software. He wasn't sure but he said "they hoped it wouldn't effect the performance of the controller" !!!! WHAT !!!! Gee I hope so too!!! If my company worked things this way you can bet we'd be losing alot of business. How would CBM like it if we went ahead and shipped them a bunch of '040's for production systems and when we found out we had floating point problems we just said uhh well how about disabling any floating point, re-compile, and things will be just fine! Somehow I think they would take a dim view on that. (BTW.. opinions expressed here are mine and not those of my employer) Stan Fisher - stan@teroach.phx.mcd.mot.com - asuvax!mcdphx!teroach!stan Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Arizona - Voice (602) 438-3228 ^^^^^^^^
jep@mtiame.oz (Jesper Peterson) (10/31/90)
In article <5357@crash.cts.com> denny@pnet01.cts.com (Dennis Anderson) writes: >[...] >but have run into a problem. My friend got ahold of a 20 meg SCSI drive and >power supply. We cannot get the 2091 or the 590 to recognize this drive. The >drive works fine on anouther friends 1000 using a Supra controller. When >[...] Have you tried giving the drive a different unit id? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USEnet: jep@mtiame.mtia.oz.au UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!mtiame.oz!jep [...] I had to leave out reality to keep the post clean and to the point. - jeremy@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeremy York) in rec.music.misc
wschmidt@phobix (Wolfram Schmidt) (11/01/90)
In article <15476@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: [...] >It's not true in any way, shape or form. The 2091 and 590 support more >than one SCSI drive. > >1) You need to properly terminate the SCSI bus for more than one drive > to work. (A SCSI bus needs to be terminated at each end, and no > more than at each end. This may involve removing terminating resistors > from the middle drives) [...] > andy >-- >andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy >Commodore-Amiga, Inc. > >"It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the > problem." > >Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. >I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. So what happens if you have multiple drives, one internal and some external? The bus is terminated at both ends. The host adapter is terminated, too. Otherwise the manufacturer of the host adapter should have supplied a terminator for the external port. At least my 2090 has terminators on board. So when I soon connect an external SCSI tape drive the bus will have three terminators. Any comments (especially form peolpe who design such things)? Wolfram PS: Will the internal cabling of the external tape drive for the A3[05]00UX be correct? -- Wolfram Schmidt Regardless what some silly news software tries to tell you my email address is: wschmidt@iao.fhg.de wschmidt@IAO.FhG.de Wolfram Schmidt Teckstr. 11 W-7056 Weinstadt Germany +49-7151/62408 MET
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (11/01/90)
In <304@rusux1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>, wschmidt@phobix (Wolfram Schmidt) writes: > >So what happens if you have multiple drives, one internal and some external? Same thing applies... two terminators.. one at each end of the bus. >The bus is terminated at both ends. This is the way it should be. > The host adapter is terminated, too. The 'too' is a little misleading. In many cases, the host adapter _IS_ at te end of the bus. If it is not, the proper way is to remove the terminators from the host adapter. In practice, there are other solutions that do not follow the spec, but that work just fine. >Otherwise the manufacturer of the host adapter should have supplied a >terminator for the external port. Why? When you buy an external device, it will usually have a terminator, either separately or installed in the device. It is up to you as to whether you install it, leave it in, or remove it. > At least my 2090 has terminators on board. Right.. it is considered to be on one end of the bus, and was in fact, shipped that way in the 2500, when 2090s were the controller supplied. >So when I soon connect an external SCSI tape drive the bus will have three >terminators. Any comments (especially form peolpe who design such things)? It will if you leave all the terminators in place. Now in practice, you can often 'get by' with terminating the bus in a unit that is not on the end of the run. While the spec states that each physical end of the bus should be terminated, and while it should work that way, it will often work if it is configured differently. You might try one of the following... 1. Leave the terminators off the internal drive(s), leaving the terminators on the host adapter and terminating the external device. (I ran this way for ages when I had a 2090) 2. Remove the terminators from the host adapter, leaving the terminators on _one_ of the internal drives. They may, however, be soldered in. 3. Leave the host adapter teminators in place, and run a ribbon cable from the host adapter to the internal drives and from there, out the back to the external device, terminating in the external. -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (11/01/90)
In article <13925@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> teroach!stan@phx.mcd.mot.com (Stan Fisher) writes: >I know many of us 2091 owners (590 too) have experienced this problem.. I >asked a while back on the net about the SCSI bus hang problem (multiple >drives on the buss going poof) and was told to disable the reselection >option in the HDTOOLBOX program's advanced options area. This was >"supposed to fix the problem" which in reality is only a patch workaround >to reduce the occurance of the problem. Since the cause of the data loss is an extra interrupt during the SCSI reselect, turning off reselection on all drives will reduce the occurance of the problem to zero. >The REAL problem is that Commodore >got a batch of bad Western Digital SCSI controller chips with reselection >problems and is trying to avoid doing the right thing and fixing everyones >boards with new controller chips! I also was told that the firmware You are incorrect. The problem is that Western Digital came out with a *new* revision of their chip that works slightly differently than the old one; its only the new chips that show the problem. Their low level SCSI state machine has changed; since we may be the only ones using their low level command set, and the only ones who are using (or want to use) reselection on disk drives, (as well as supporting multitasking so you could initiate two copies) we got bit by the new chip. >me back with the answer. About 1 week later I did get a call. This person >said another rev. of the firmware was just about ready, and when it got to >the dealers, it would be offered as a free upgrade. I wanted to know how >they planned to fix the hardware problem with software. He wasn't sure but he >said "they hoped it wouldn't effect the performance of the controller" This is one of the primary functions of software. As en employee of a chip company, you should not be surprised. The software is the last thing to get done....the chips are cast in stone long, long before the software is done. (for instance, the 030 cache requires a software kludge to work properly) > !!!! WHAT !!!! Gee I hope so too!!! If my company worked things this >way you can bet we'd be losing alot of business. How would CBM like it if And, sometimes you take a performance hit...for instance, in the single drive case, you get higher numbers if you don't support reselect at all; supporting it fully is a hit, no matter what you do. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
stan@phx.mcd.mot.com (Stan Fisher) (11/02/90)
In article <15515@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: >Since the cause of the data loss is an extra interrupt during the SCSI >reselect, turning off reselection on all drives will reduce the >occurance of the problem to zero. That's interesting... I still get SCSI buss hangs, just not near as often. >You are incorrect. The problem is that Western Digital came out with >a *new* revision of their chip that works slightly differently than >the old one; its only the new chips that show the problem. Their >low level SCSI state machine has changed; since we may be the only >ones using their low level command set, and the only ones who >are using (or want to use) reselection on disk drives, >(as well as supporting multitasking so you could initiate two copies) >we got bit by the new chip. Dang!... It never fails... as soon as I believe I've gathered all the facts and then let myself get rialed up and make flames with them, I get crow served for lunch :^) I really was going on what I'd been told by dealers and other Commodore personel. Sorry. (guess I gotta refrain in the future) >andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy >Commodore-Amiga, Inc. Flames withdrawn.. but I still don't like being charged for bug fixes. Stan Stan Fisher - stan@teroach.phx.mcd.mot.com - asuvax!mcdphx!teroach!stan Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Arizona - Voice (602) 438-3228
IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) (11/02/90)
I'm real sick of reading Commodore's lies to the public concerning
the 2090a and 2091a controllers... In the last go around
Commodore's Andy Finkel said quote 'its only the new chips that
show the problem' Wrong! I had a 2090a quite a while back that
was made in 1988. It exhibited the same hang problems when using
multiple drives. So its not just a few isolated new 2091
controllers..! I'd like to know why Commodore keeps telling us
either that there is no problem or that only the newer controllers
have this fault because neither is true....
-Tom Nezwekschweige@suns2.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) (11/05/90)
In article <90306.093239IO91461@MAINE.BITNET> IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) writes: > > I'm real sick of reading Commodore's lies to the public concerning > the 2090a and 2091a controllers... In the last go around > Commodore's Andy Finkel said quote 'its only the new chips that > show the problem' Wrong! I had a 2090a quite a while back that > was made in 1988. It exhibited the same hang problems when using > multiple drives. So its not just a few isolated new 2091 > controllers..! I'd like to know why Commodore keeps telling us > either that there is no problem or that only the newer controllers > have this fault because neither is true.... > > -Tom Nezwek Tom - I don't think that accusing Commodore and Commodore employees who voluntarily participate on this newsgroup of lying really accomplishes anything, especially since I think you misunderstood the topic of the thread. I don't recall anything being said as to whether the problem being discussed existed existed on the 2090 or 2090a controllers (I may be wrong on this). My recollection was that this discussion was specific to problems with the A2091 controller (I don't believe there is an A2091a controller). In that regard problems with the 2090a were not germane to the specific topic, and comments about the 2091 shouldn't be extended to the 2090a. Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (11/05/90)
In <90306.093239IO91461@MAINE.BITNET>, IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) writes: > I'm real sick of reading Commodore's lies to the public concerning > the 2090a and 2091a controllers... In the last go around > Commodore's Andy Finkel said quote 'its only the new chips that > show the problem' Wrong! I had a 2090a quite a while back that > was made in 1988. It exhibited the same hang problems when using > multiple drives. So its not just a few isolated new 2091 > controllers..! I'd like to know why Commodore keeps telling us > either that there is no problem or that only the newer controllers > have this fault because neither is true.... > > -Tom Nezwek The 2090a and 2091 use two different SCSI chips. They use different support circuitry. They use different software. How could they possibly suffer from the 'same' hang problems? A hang on one is not necessarily the result of the same problem as on the other. I hope someone reads this to you. -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
clay@na.excelan.com (Clay Jones) (11/06/90)
In article <13946@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> teroach!stan@phx.mcd.mot.com (Stan Fisher) writes: >In article <15515@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: >>Since the cause of the data loss is an extra interrupt during the SCSI >>reselect, turning off reselection on all drives will reduce the >>occurance of the problem to zero. > >That's interesting... I still get SCSI buss hangs, just not near as >often. > But how do you turn off reselection on a streaming tape drive that doesn't have HardBlocks info written to it? Clay Jones clay@novell.com
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (11/06/90)
In article <90306.093239IO91461@MAINE.BITNET> IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) writes: > > I'm real sick of reading Commodore's lies to the public concerning > the 2090a and 2091a controllers... In the last go around > Commodore's Andy Finkel said quote 'its only the new chips that > show the problem' Wrong! I had a 2090a quite a while back that > was made in 1988. It exhibited the same hang problems when using > multiple drives. So its not just a few isolated new 2091 We were talking about problems about the 2091. We were talking about a hang problem with reselection on the 2091. We were not talking about the 2090a. There is no such thing as a 2091a. To repeat: we were not talking about the 2090a. The 2091 is a different controller. It has different chips, and different software. And, we were talking about one of those. Not a 2090a. Understand now ? > controllers..! I'd like to know why Commodore keeps telling us > either that there is no problem or that only the newer controllers > have this fault because neither is true.... > > -Tom Nezwek I'd resent your rude header more if you had actually read and understood the posting. It's still uncalled for, however. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
jol@sei.cmu.edu (Jun Lee) (11/06/90)
In article <15615@cbmvax.commodore.com>, andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: > In article <90306.093239IO91461@MAINE.BITNET> IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) writes: > > > > I'm real sick of reading Commodore's lies to the public concerning > > the 2090a and 2091a controllers... In the last go around Hi, Andy. I'm not going to call you are lier but I would appreciated if you can give me some answers. I have a A2000HD with a 2091 controller. I also have two Hard disks cofingured as dh0 (Q40) and dh1 (Q80). I also had the reselection off as I was told by a tech support rep from CBM. No problem so far. It worked fine. I even copied hard disk to hard disk (cp dh0: dh1: ) without any problems. Everything was fine until last week. I was copying some files from a directory on my dh0: drive to another directory on my dh1: diretory (cp dh0:*.zoo dh1:Tmp ). As I was doing this I had another shell window open and did a dir on another directory on my dh0: and next thing I know the disks hang. The HD light was on, the disks kept spinning and spinning ..... So I had no choice but to reboot. But when I rebooted I kept getting "...Error, can't validate dh1:....". I had to reformat the disk. I lost whole 80Meg of data. Luckily I had some of it backup but still I lost alot of work. I don't want to sound like I'm bitching here but I wish to avoid any other "trojan horses" concerning the 2091. I would like to know what I did wrong and is there any other "things" I shouldn't do that will crash my disks. I guess one thing good that came out of this is that from now on I'll be backing up everything that's on my hard disks. Please inform me. -- AMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIGAMIG J @@ jol@sei.cmu.edu // U \/ (412) 268-7602 \\ // N LEE SEI, Carnegie Mellon University \X/
seawolf@buhub.UUCP (11/07/90)
This is the first I've heard of it...but I have experienced the problem and I must say it is very frustrating. Does anybody know if Commodore has any plans to correct the problem? (i.e. fix the controllers it has already sold.) Considering the luck I had previously, I'd guess no. Seawolf (seawolf@buhub.bradley.edu)
IO92257@MAINE.BITNET (11/07/90)
Tom Newzek is real numb, isn't he? But he was making a point about Commodore Controller Problems... which have existed...of course, All controllers seem to problems. When is some mag gonna have the guts to review the new ones? (GVP,IVS, etc) Or haven't all the Next Generation of controllers been relased yet? -B. Cook
David.Plummer@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Plummer) (11/08/90)
I can attest to the "more than one drive" bit, since I've got three Seagate SCSI plus the original WD93028-X (read: slow) drive hooked up to my A590. Two questions, however: To properly terminate my drive, I assume I remove the resistor packs from all but the last drive in the chain. But, each of my Seagate ST-157N-01 drives has THREE resistor packs running along the 50pin SCSI connector. Do I remove all of them? Second, each time I go into HDToolBox, one of the drives always claims to have unsaved changes, even though I just ran the program. Could this be a problem with improper termination, or what? Thanks in advance (how assuming!), Dave Plummer -- David Plummer - via FidoNet node 1:140/22 UUCP: ...!herald!weyr!70!David.Plummer Domain: David.Plummer@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG Standard Disclaimers Apply...
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (11/10/90)
In <918.273A4832@weyr.FIDONET.ORG>, David.Plummer@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Plummer) writes: > >To properly terminate my drive, I assume I remove the resistor packs >from all but the last drive in the chain. But, each of my Seagate >ST-157N-01 drives has THREE resistor packs running along the 50pin >SCSI connector. Do I remove all of them? Yes, all three should be removed. There are different numbers of resistors in different terminator packages, which will detemine how many are needed by a given drive. >Second, each time I go into HDToolBox, one of the drives always >claims to have unsaved changes, even though I just ran the program. >Could this be a problem with improper termination, or what? Have you saved out the 'changed' parameters? If you exit without saving the parameters that HDToolBox think are changed, it will complain the next time too. If you add or remove drives, you can end up in this situation. >Thanks in advance (how assuming!), Good assumption. You're welcome. -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
stevem@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Steve McClure) (11/18/90)
In article <2298@excelan.COM> clay@na.excelan.com (Clay Jones) writes: +In article <13946@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> teroach!stan@phx.mcd.mot.com (Stan Fisher) writes: +>In article <15515@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: +>>Since the cause of the data loss is an extra interrupt during the SCSI +>>reselect, turning off reselection on all drives will reduce the +>>occurance of the problem to zero. +> +>That's interesting... I still get SCSI buss hangs, just not near as +>often. +> + +But how do you turn off reselection on a streaming tape drive that doesn't +have HardBlocks info written to it? + +Clay Jones +clay@novell.com How about with a mode sense/select? My Archive 2150S has a jumber to set the block size to use disconnect on. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve email: Steve.McClure@Columbia.NCR.COM 803-791-7054 The above are my opinions, which NCR doesn't really care about anyway! CAUSER's Amiga BBS! | 803-796-3127 | 8pm-8am 8n1 | 300/1200/2400
David.Plummer@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Plummer) (11/30/90)
I> Tom Newzek is real numb, isn't he? I> But he was making a point about I> Commodore Controller Problems... I> which have existed...of course, - want to buy a BI80 card for your 64? I havemn't seen 40 columns in years! -- David Plummer - via FidoNet node 1:140/22 UUCP: ...!herald!weyr!70!David.Plummer Domain: David.Plummer@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG Standard Disclaimers Apply...