mjb@pnet02.CTS.COM (Martin Brown) (05/18/87)
I am running an ASDG Mini-Rack 'D' with two meg board, and need to get a HD
compatible with the Mini-Rack. I'm interested in recommendations from those
who have this setup. Does your HD come with a zorro1 controller or are you
sandwiching the side mount controller between Amy and the ASDG, or some
other(?) setup. Thanx for your help. - Martin Brown -
UUCP: {akgua!crash, hplabs!hp-sdd!crash}!gryphon!pnet02!mjb
INET: mjb@pnet02.CTS.COMeric@hector.UUCP (05/22/87)
Keywords:
ASDG's SDP (Satellite Disk Processor) will be available in the fall.
Considering you have a Mini-Rack-D, also by ASDG, you may want to wait
for the SDP which promises to be the highest performance disk controller
available.
Eric
ARPA: Lavitsky@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
UUCP: ...{wherever!}ulysses!eric
...{wherever!}rutgers!topaz!eric
SNAIL: 34 Maplehurst La., Piscataway, NJ 08854miner@ulowell.UUCP (05/22/87)
In article <2598@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> eric@hector (Eric Lavitsky) writes: > ASDG's SDP (Satellite Disk Processor) will be available in the fall. >Considering you have a Mini-Rack-D, also by ASDG, you may want to wait >for the SDP which promises to be the highest performance disk controller >available. > >Eric I read the heading of this posting and was excited that perhapse ASDG had new hard disk out and this was some information on it, I was wrong! Sorry Gang but I consider this non-informative blatant advertizing! If you have seen something Eric, or have knowledge of how it is designed and want to comment on it, fine. I do not find a posting like this in good taste. It says nothing except don't by anyone elses hard disk, but gives no reasons why or any guaranty of availability. If you agree or disagree with be please send EMAIL don't burden the group with different or similar opinions. -- Rich Miner ULowell-Cntr for Productivity !ulowell!miner 617-452-5000x2693
miner@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Rich A Miner ) (05/27/87)
In article <2598@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> eric@hector (Eric Lavitsky) writes: > ASDG's SDP (Satellite Disk Processor).... promises to be the highest >performance disk controller available. While ordering some RAM from ASDG I asked Perry some questions about this controller. The SDP will have its own 68000, an MMU to manage non- contiguous buffers, a half MEG of RAM, and also DMA hardware. The on-board memory will contain disk speed up routines similar to some of those posted to the net recently providing on board intelligence. You will also be able to program the controller to handle other file formats, perhaps for optimizing a drive for image storage etc. Sounds like it will be a good one, Perry could not give a date, just sometime this summer. I have no connection with ASDG I just am exchanging this posting for a discount on the memory I ordered. Wait, only kidding :-). -- Rich Miner ULowell-Cntr for Productivity !ulowell!miner 617-452-5000x2693r
michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) (05/31/87)
In article <1316@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> miner@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Rich A Miner (.RAM)) writes: >controller. The SDP will have its own 68000, an MMU to manage non- >contiguous buffers, a half MEG of RAM, and also DMA hardware. The Wait a sec--Can I reprogram this thing for general purpose stuff? Just write some communication software to talk to a window on the amiga, port unix over, and Presto! Perry, can you change that to a 68010? Please? -- : Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael : The above is the result of being educated at a school that discriminates : against roosters.
perry@well.UUCP (Perry S. Kivolowitz) (06/01/87)
In article <1565@stb.UUCP>, michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: > In article <1316@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> miner@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Rich A Miner (.RAM)) writes: > >controller. The SDP will have its own 68000, an MMU to manage non- > >contiguous buffers, a half MEG of RAM, and also DMA hardware. The > > Wait a sec--Can I reprogram this thing for general purpose stuff? Just > write some communication software to talk to a window on the amiga, port > unix over, and Presto! > > Perry, can you change that to a 68010? Please? I should note that the MMU is not a 68851 but rather is a discrete design tuned to the things we need it to do. So, porting Un*x is not that straight forward (it never is, is it?) The 68010 would add cost to the end user price which right now looks like it will be quite reasonable. We don't want to push it though. Although - you could always drop one in I suppose... Perry