[comp.unix.ultrix] Problems with Exabyte on a DECsystem 5400

rcmart@rwc.urc.tue.nl (Mart Mennen) (06/07/91)

A few months ago we installed a SI59-Exabyte unit of the manufacturer
System Industries on our DEcsystem 5400.
The SI59-Exabyte is connected to the Q-bus via their QS1000 controller,
which emulates a TK50. The Exabyte unit is driven by the standard DEC
tmscp driversoftware. We are running Ultrix 4.0 and in addition to the
SI59 we have 3 RA-disks, 1 TU81+ tape unit and 1 TK70 cartridge unit on
the DECsystem 5400.
These devices are configured in the Ultrix kernel as follows:

adapter         uba0       at nexus?    
adapter         msi0       at nexus?    
adapter         ibus0      at nexus?    
controller      uda0       at uba0      
controller      uq0        at uda0      csr 0172150  vector uqintr 
disk            ra0        at uq0       drive 0
disk            ra1        at uq0       drive 1
disk            ra2        at uq0       drive 2
controller      klesiu0    at uba0      
controller      uq16       at klesiu0   csr 0174500  vector uqintr 
tape            tms0       at uq16      drive 0		# TK70
device          ln0        at ibus?     vector lnintr 
controller      klesiu1    at uba0      
controller      uq17       at klesiu1   csr 0160404  vector uqintr 
tape            tms1       at uq17      drive 0		# TU81
controller      klesiu2    at uba0      
controller      uq18       at klesiu2   csr 0160444  vector uqintr 
tape            tms2       at uq18      drive 0		# Exabyte

Until now we did not succeed to use the SI59-Exabyte without causing the
system to panic once in a while!
We use the "dump|dd"- and "dd|restore"-pipecommand and the tar command
for writing and reading to/from the SI59-Exabyte.
The problem does not show up immediately, but often occurs after
successfully writing for 1-2 hours.
The most occuring system panic was:

	cpu 0 panic: mscp_dealloc_rspid: sequence number mismatch

Before this system panic a lot of mscp messages are reported in the
errorlog, which all look like:

	mscp_message: dropping msg: mp c3d2d440, op a1, RSPID 4f60044
	getpeername: Bad file number
	mscp - resynching controller uq18
	mscp_dealloc_rsid: error rtp->rspid 50f0044, rp->rspid 4f60044

The remainder of the panics consisted of:

	cpu 0 panic: trap
	cpu 0 panic: unaligned access
	cpu 0 panic: m_free has bad m_cltype

In the meantime the firmware of the QS1000 controller was upgraded, but
didn't solve any of the above problems!
At the moment we don't dare to use this Exabyte unit anymore....

So, we are interested to know if there are any users who have succeeded
to get the SI59 to work on a DECsystem 5400 or similar DEC system.
Perhaps someone has a clou why it doesn't work on our system.

Secondly, are there users of DECsystem 5400's, which successfully use
Exabyte units of other vendors?
If this is the case, could you give me some information about these
vendors and their Exabyte product(s)?

Thanks in advance for your time and help.

-- 
Mart Mennen, Eindhoven University of Technology
Computing Centre 1.99,  +31 40 472164
P.O.Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
E-Mail: rcmart@urc.tue.nl

GEOMAGIC@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Daniel OConnell) (06/12/91)

>A few months ago we installed a SI59-Exabyte unit of the manufacturer
>System Industries on our DEcsystem 5400.

>Secondly, are there users of DECsystem 5400's, which successfully use
>Exabyte units of other vendors?
>If this is the case, could you give me some information about these
>vendors and their Exabyte product(s)?

>Thanks in advance for your time and help.

We have a CMD 223 controller in our 5400 working with an Exebyte.
However, working means only that dump and restore, and tar work.
dd operations can fail occasionaly, but dd also fails on our 9-track
and TK-70 since upgrading (downgrading ?) to Sultrix 4.1. This
class of programs has been verified at other Ohio State Univ. sites
and is apparently an operating system device driver bug or something
along those lines.

I have hope (faint) that this is partially resolved in Sultrix 4.2, but
reading the release notes does not encourage much hope. Meanwhile,
a $240,000 seismic reflection processing software package is disabled
until this TMSCP tape problem is fixed. It works with SCSI tape drives
that the software vendor uses. Of course, all our three 5400 tape controllers
make tapes (including SCSI Exebyte) look like DEC TMSCP tapes so we
would have optimal compatibility with DEC TMSCP tape bugs... sigh.

Cheers,
Dan O'Connell
geomagic@geo1s.mps.ohio-state.edu