scf@statware.UUCP (Steve Fullerton) (10/23/88)
Is anyone using a QIC tape drive on a 20Mhz XENIX 386 system
(QIC24 format)? We are looking for a tape drive that uses a format
that can be read on Sun, AT&T, and other systems. What is a good
tape drive? SCO's compatible hardware section for release 2.2.3
only lists the Tecmar QIC-60AT drive.
--
Steve Fullerton Statware, Inc.
scf%statware.uucp@cs.orst.edu 260 SW Madison Ave, Suite 109
orstcs!statware!scf Corvallis, OR 97333
503/753-5382sandy@turnkey.TCC.COM (Sanford 'Sandy' Zelkovitz) (10/25/88)
In article <1073@statware.UUCP>, scf@statware.UUCP (Steve Fullerton) writes: > Is anyone using a QIC tape drive on a 20Mhz XENIX 386 system > (QIC24 format)? We are looking for a tape drive that uses a format > that can be read on Sun, AT&T, and other systems. What is a good > tape drive? SCO's compatible hardware section for release 2.2.3 > only lists the Tecmar QIC-60AT drive. > > -- > Steve Fullerton Statware, Inc. I use the Archive tape backup system (long card cntroller only) on my systems. The tapes can be read without any problems on our SUNs if you use the /dev/rst8 driver (high density) on the Suns. The reverse is also true. (tapes written on the Suns can be read under Xenix) Please note that the only compatible format is "tar". Sanford <sandy> Zelkovitz
root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) (10/26/88)
In article <228@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (id for use with uunet/usenet) writes: >In article <1073@statware.UUCP>, scf@statware.UUCP (Steve Fullerton) writes: >> Is anyone using a QIC tape drive on a 20Mhz XENIX 386 system >> (QIC24 format)? We are looking for a tape drive that uses a format > >We have been using Everex tape drives on our systems for a while now with >no problems. They come in either 60 or 125 Meg drives. We have them >set up as a type W, int=5, dma=1, base=0300. The only glitch we ever I have seen situations where the Wangtek controller will not run on 20MHz systems that run the bus at 10MHz. There can be problems with the "short card" Archive controller in these systems too, but the "long card" archive controller and FastTape drive work reliably. Archive is one of the tape systems SCO supports, so installation is a snap. Larry Dighera Disclaimer: I am biased toward the Archive system. It has always worked reliably for me, and I market the 60 MB Archive external tape systems for $660. -- USPS: The Consultants' Exchange, PO Box 12100, Santa Ana, CA 92712 TELE: (714) 842-6348: BBS (N81); (714) 842-5851: Xenix guest account (E71) UUCP: conexch Any ACU 2400 17148425851 ogin:-""-ogin:-""-ogin: nuucp UUCP: ...!uunet!turnkey!conexch!root || ...!trwrb!ucla-an!conexch!root
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (10/27/88)
In article <2296@turnkey.TCC.COM> sandy@turnkey.TCC.COM (Sanford 'Sandy' Zelkovitz) writes: >In article <1073@statware.UUCP>, scf@statware.UUCP (Steve Fullerton) writes: >> Is anyone using a QIC tape drive on a 20Mhz XENIX 386 system >> (QIC24 format)? We are looking for a tape drive that uses a format >> that can be read on Sun, AT&T, and other systems. > >I use the Archive tape backup system (long card cntroller only) on my systems. There is only one thing to watch on those archive drives.... A couple of months ago we had an "interesting" failure on our tape drive (It's an archive with the SC400 long-card). The drive would write (or appear to) perfectly, but it wrote _junk_. 100%, absolute garbage. We only caught this one by (bad) luck, as our disk decided that it would crash a day after the tape quit working right. Fortunately the only loss was one days' information; nasty but not a major disaster. Now, we were under the impression that these drives had two gaps in the head, and that they at least checked for sanity in the data that was written. It would appear that was a bad assumption, or that the particular failure mode the archive board experienced was undetectable by this operation. We've also sold Wangtek gear, and have been completely happy with it (no returns from customers, no failures). Since we've never had a Wangtek product fail I've got no idea if they are subject to the same failure mode as the Archive units. Both work fine with SCO Xenix V/386 V2.2.x The moral? ALWAYS check your tapes for readability, END TO END. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
cdold@starfish.Convergent.COM (Clarence Dold) (10/29/88)
From article <2011@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, by karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger): ( refernce to Archive QIC tape drives...) > > Now, we were under the impression that these drives had two gaps in the > head, and that they at least checked for sanity in the data that was > written. It would appear that was a bad assumption, or that the particular > failure mode the archive board experienced was undetectable by this > operation. > The problem is that the two-gap arrangement only verifies that magnetic fluctuations got from the Write gap to the Read gap intact. There is no verification that data got from the controller to the drive intact. There is an 8-bit data bus with no error check. The gap trick is really only a media test. > The moral? ALWAYS check your tapes for readability, END TO END. -- --- Clarence A Dold - cdold@starfish.Convergent.COM (408) 435-5274 ...pyramid!ctnews!professo!dold MailStop 09-031 P.O.Box 6685, San Jose, CA 95150-6685