karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) (05/14/88)
I'm helping a friend of mine who owns a computer store try to install $1200
worth of Microport software on a 386/20 clone. It has three meg of RAM
and an 80 meg Seagate drive.
First off, the surface analysis program doesn't work. It bombs. This is
mentioned in the install documentation, but the install script (autobooted
this time, unlike on the 286) valiantly tries to run it anyway. Without
the surface analysis, this means we *must* type in all the defects by
hand (right?), and that we'll find any new defects by having the system
screw up rather than having the surface analysis program find it. If this
is correct, it is a major fubar.
The install docs say that you'll have to convert byte offsets on error
reports over to sectors, tho' they provide a chart for converting sector
numbers to byte offsets and the "enter bad tracks" program asks for byte
offsets. I assume this is a bug in the documentation and they really
want byte offsets.
Next, the first Seagate 80 meg that we tried had an extraordinarily large
number of bad spots on the disk, like about 100. After entering almost
all of them, the program bombs back to the root prompt saying "too many
bad tracks." Boo, hiss. We had to use a different drive.
Also, has anyone else noticed how much more user friendly DOS install,
format, etc. programs are than Microport Unix ones? The Sys V/386 format
program appears to print a period for every four cylinders that it formats.
(That's based on observation; there's no mention of it in the docs.)_
The DOS format program cursor addresses to continually update, numerically,
which cylinder and head is being formatted. It helps one's confidence,
particularly when the format program seems to slowly drive the heads back to
track zero after every cylinder, making it seem like something is wrong
since it is constantly reseeking.
Further, you get these dire messages that go along the line of "WARNING!
Couldn't read alternate VTOC. Couldn't install the boot block!"
Again, the docs say "don't worry about it", but I think it's bullshit
that messages like this be sent if they don't indicate a problem.
The fact is, installing Microport Unix is still for gurus only (unless
my experiences have been very rare rather than, as I suspect, pretty common)
and, although some people at Microport are apparently getting rich off it,
neither will it be the "next thing" nor will they fix the bugs that have
been killing my system since 9/1986.
To conclude, Sys V/386 install procedures seem to be as painful as Sys
V/AT ones. To make matters worse, on the AT version they at least put
enough utilities on the boot disk so you can look around and try running
some stuff by hand (divvy, mkfs, etc.) in the process of getting the
system going. Although this is conceivable on Sys V/386, the lack
of "ls" on the boot disk makes it pretty much impossible. Meanwhile,
my buddy's not too pleased either. He had been hoping to sell Unix with
DOSmerge to power users as an alternative to OS/2. Seeing how much trouble
we've been having, though, he's not too hot on the idea of having to
go through this install procedure very often. Oh well, he's got a 30 day
return on the software. I'm going back to the store today to try to finish
installing it on a new Seagate 80 that has fewer errors. We'll see.
--
"Now here's something you're really going to like!" -- Rocket J. Squirrel
..!{bellcore!tness1,uunet!nuchat}!sugar!karl, Unix BBS (713) 438-5018hack@bellboy.UUCP (Greg Hackney) (05/15/88)
In article <1984@sugar.UUCP> karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >I'm helping a friend of mine who owns a computer store try to install $1200 >worth of Microport software on a 386/20 clone. It has three meg of RAM >and an 80 meg Seagate drive. > >First off, the surface analysis program doesn't work. It bombs. Karl, I just got a 386 clone, Microport 386, a Seagate 4096 80MB drive, a Seagate ST225 20MB drive, and all is running wonderfully well. I saw some articles about people having hell with their disk drives. So I chose a different formatter. I used the "Seagate Disk Manager" that is supposed to come free with every new Seagate drive. I used to it to low level format my drives with an interleave of 3. When I booted uPort, it asked if I wanted to format the drives. I said no. I have not have a single system panic or file system corruption for the 2 weeks it has been running. (Including a full netnews feed). >The fact is, installing Microport Unix is still for gurus only I had absolutely no problems with the install. I just followed along with the installation menu. BTW, I'm using the Western Digital WD-1003 controller. -- Greg
wtr@moss.ATT.COM (05/16/88)
In article <1984@sugar.UUCP> karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >I'm helping a friend of mine who owns a computer store try to install $1200 worth of Microport software on a 386/20 clone. It has three meg of RAM and an 80 meg Seagate drive. >First off, the surface analysis program doesn't work. It bombs. If you are going with the the seagate drive, try using the seagate DISKMANAGER software (not actually seagate's, but they distribute it with their drives) boot dos and use this to do your low level & bad block scan. this tends to make installation a lot easier. this is not a fault of microport and/or unix, but rather a good point of dos: it's easier to use a simplistic program loader for basic system checking/formatting. >The fact is, installing Microport Unix is still for gurus only (unless my experiences have been very rare rather than, as I suspect, pretty common) [...] Sys V/386 install procedures seem to be as painful as Sys >V/AT ones. which are as painfull as System V ones,... (etc. :-) you have a very good point, what we need is a decent installation method that is as painless (as possible) while allowing many different configurations of hardware. up to this point, unix was for 'gurus' only. but now that it's being ported down to the desktop, we must look at making the system admin as friendly as possible. unfortunately, the installation is still 'targetted' to those who have experience in the os. microport installation is not for the weak stomached ;-) don't give up. unix (ala microport) is a real dog the first time through, but i found my second installation (when i replaced my hard drive) went much easier and faster. and i've since gone and installed on a third machine, with different drive, etc, and i found that it was no real problem. good luck! ===================================================================== Bill Rankin Bell Labs, Whippany NJ (201) 386-4154 (cornet 232) email address: ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!wtr ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!wtr =====================================================================
vandys@hpindda.HP.COM (Andy Valencia) (05/16/88)
Let me amplify on the sentiment already coming in here. If your hardware is a *true* clone, then installing Microport is easy. If it isn't, then it's a real nightmare. But let me add that it isn't just Microport; SCO turns into an equally big pain when your hardware acts up. So let me suggest that your friend try a different hardware vendor, and iterate the install. Or maybe it's just the hard disk interface--try a different brand. Andy Valencia
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (05/17/88)
In article <1984@sugar.UUCP> karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:
...First off, the surface analysis program doesn't work. It bombs. This is
...mentioned in the install documentation, but the install script (autobooted
...this time, unlike on the 286) valiantly tries to run it anyway. Without
...the surface analysis, this means we *must* type in all the defects by
...hand (right?), and that we'll find any new defects by having the system
...screw up rather than having the surface analysis program find it. If this
...is correct, it is a major fubar.
??? When the install script asked if I wanted the surface analysis, I
typed "s" and it skipped it entirely. Never trust the surface analysis
done by a disk controller over that done by a disk tester. I would hand
enter that bad block map regardless, just for piece of mind.
...Also, has anyone else noticed how much more user friendly DOS install,
...format, etc. programs are than Microport Unix ones? The Sys V/386 format
...program appears to print a period for every four cylinders that it formats.
...(That's based on observation; there's no mention of it in the docs.)_
...The DOS format program cursor addresses to continually update, numerically,
...which cylinder and head is being formatted. It helps one's confidence,
...particularly when the format program seems to slowly drive the heads back to
...track zero after every cylinder, making it seem like something is wrong
...since it is constantly reseeking.
Have you ever used DEBUG to format an XT disk? That ain't friendly in
my book. And it's only the recent DOS "high-level" format programs that
show head and cylinder. The old one's didn't and I don't believe
that the low level formatters ever did.
...The fact is, installing Microport Unix is still for gurus only (unless
...my experiences have been very rare rather than, as I suspect, pretty common)
...and, although some people at Microport are apparently getting rich off it,
...neither will it be the "next thing" nor will they fix the bugs that have
...been killing my system since 9/1986.
I'm certainly no guru, but I've found that the installation goes pretty
smoothly. I "preformat" my Micropolis 1335 (71MB formatted) with
SpeedStor and then run the install script. Seemed pretty easy to me.scott@cdp.UUCP (05/17/88)
Note that when you do a low level format with an MS-DOS utility be *sure* the MS-DOS utility does not do any sparing (which sometimes means you have to tell it to not do any testing). Then, use diskadd or the boot disk to do the sparing. echo * is a reasonable alternative to ls . Also, I once created shell scripts to do cat, sed (search & replace), grep, etc, and it worked fairly well (using case statements for the pattern matching). But it's much easier to just mount a hard disk with a Unix filing system than put the mounted disk's binary directories in your search path (or copy a few utilities over to the boot disk; I copied a kernel with a tape cartridge, and then the dd and tape utilities, so I could reboot off cartridge tape). Don't forget that the table of sector to bfi is wrong for 3:1 interleave. -scott
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (05/18/88)
In article <7030009@hpindda.HP.COM> vandys@hpindda.HP.COM (Andy Valencia) writes:
...
... Let me amplify on the sentiment already coming in here.
...If your hardware is a *true* clone, then installing Microport is
^^^^^^^^^^^^
of what? A Compaq 386?dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (05/19/88)
In article <26531@clyde.ATT.COM>, wtr@moss.ATT.COM writes: > In article <1984@sugar.UUCP> karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) > writes: > >I'm helping a friend of mine who owns a computer store try > to install $1200 worth of Microport software on a 386/20 clone. > It has three meg of RAM and an 80 meg Seagate drive. > > >First off, the surface analysis program doesn't work. It bombs. > > If you are going with the the seagate drive, try using the seagate > DISKMANAGER software (not actually seagate's, but they distribute it > with their drives) boot dos and use this to do your low level & bad > block scan. this tends to make installation a lot easier. this is NOT TAKE THIS ADVICE!!!!!! Only on SV/AT (ie 286) is the dos bad sector mapping scheme used under UNIX. On SV/386, the AT vtoc virtual disk mapping scheme is used for greater SV compatibility. At first I criticized Microport (ie Interactive) for this but on second thought: I don't trust DOS bad sector mapping for S&%#. The bad sector mappings are very different and incompatible. Pedestrian advice is dangerous to your system's health. -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. ...!{ames|harvard|rutgers|topaz|...}!rochester!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
vandys@hpindda.HP.COM (Andy Valencia) (05/19/88)
/ hpindda:comp.unix.microport / pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) / 6:12 am May 18, 1988 / >In article <7030009@hpindda.HP.COM> vandys@hpindda.HP.COM (Andy Valencia) writes: >... Let me amplify on the sentiment already coming in here. >...If your hardware is a *true* clone, then installing Microport is > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > of what? A Compaq 386? Sorry, my XT/AT background shows, eh? For the XT and AT, I am of course referring to the IBM product. For the '386, the Compaq is indeed the closest thing I've heard of for a 'standard' (although some versions have problems DMA'ing into that high speed memory). IBM's PS/2 line will eventually be worth looking at, but my experience to date is that the market isn't accepting them with the speed that the PC line was accepted with. There just doesn't seem to be that feeling of a vacuum which the PC, XT, and AT filled. Small aside. SCO's '286 XENIX runs on the Compaq 386 out of the shrink-wrap--no 32 bit, but it runs *much* faster. I hear that Microport's does not work. Comments from Microport? Did you remember to leave the "reserved" '286 bit positions 0? Andy Valencia vandys%hpindda.UUCP@hplabs.hp.com
mechjgh@tness7.UUCP (Greg Hackney ) (05/21/88)
>In article <26531@clyde.ATT.COM>, wtr@moss.ATT.COM writes: >> If you are going with the the seagate drive, try using the seagate >> DISKMANAGER software > NOT TAKE THIS ADVICE!!!!!! > On SV/386, the AT vtoc virtual disk mapping scheme is used for > greater SV compatibility. > I don't trust DOS bad sector mapping for S&%#. > The bad sector mappings are very different and incompatible. > Pedestrian advice is dangerous to your system's health. >David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. >...!{ames|harvard|rutgers|topaz|...}!rochester!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave On Microport 386, are you saying to not use the Seagate Disk Manager for surface analysis, for low level format, or all of the above? And could you clarify as to why (in novice terms). Thanks.
root@uwspan.UUCP (Sue Peru Sr.) (05/22/88)
+---- Bill Rankin writes in <26531@clyde.ATT.COM> ---- | > Sys V/386 install procedures seem to be as painful as Sys V/AT ones. | | you have a very good point, what we need is a decent installation | method that is as painless (as possible) while allowing many | different configurations of hardware. | | microport installation is not for the weak stomached ;-) +---- I am in the midst of completely rewriting Microport's low level disk installation programs (fdisk, divvy, bad sector mapping...) What would you like to see in a *GOOD* set of Unix V/AT low level disk utilities? (even though I am not working on the drivers, suggestions there are also welcome) Mail (to plocher@uwspan) or port your replies and I will try to take your suggestions into account. No, I can not send you copies of the stuff. No I can not let you Beta test it. No I can not tell you everything I want to about the stuff. I *can* take your suggestions and incorporate them into a product that fits your needs. -John -- Comp.Unix.Microport is now unmoderated! Use at your own risk :-)
root@uwspan.UUCP (Sue Peru Sr.) (05/22/88)
+---- dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) writes in <489@micropen> ---- | In article <26531@clyde.ATT.COM>, wtr@moss.ATT.COM writes: | > If you are going with the the seagate drive, try using the seagate | > DISKMANAGER software (not actually seagate's, but they distribute it | > with their drives) boot dos and use this to do your low level & bad | > block scan. this tends to make installation a lot easier. this is Actually, in the context of the original, the question is HOW TO FIND OUT WHICH TRACKS ARE BAD? In this light, any of the DOS utilities (Speedstor, DiskManager...) can do a surface analysis for you. You must then write down the bad tracks and use those numbers with your Unix install procedures (V/AT = fdisk choice 5) | NOT TAKE THIS ADVICE!!!!!! | | Only on SV/AT (ie 286) is the dos bad sector mapping scheme used under | UNIX. On SV/386, the AT vtoc virtual disk mapping scheme is used for | greater SV compatibility. Sorry, neither V/AT *or* SV/386 can use the DOS bad sector mappings. V/AT uses a bad block table at the end of the active Unix partition, DOS uses bits in in the FAT of the DOS partition. SV/386 uses a VTOC. | At first I criticized Microport (ie Interactive) | for this but on second thought: I don't trust DOS bad sector mapping for S&%#. Again, it isn't the *mapping* the above article was interested in, it was the *detection*. | Pedestrian advice is dangerous to your system's health. Yup. Glad I'm being "driven" up the wall... :-) | "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll So do I... -John -- Comp.Unix.Microport is now unmoderated! Use at your own risk :-)
hack@bellboy.UUCP (Greg Hackney) (05/23/88)
In article <3838@uwspan.UUCP> plocher@uwspan.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
I am in the midst of completely rewriting Microport's low level disk
installation programs (fdisk, divvy, bad sector mapping...)
What would you like to see in a *GOOD* set of Unix V/AT low level disk
utilities?
Organization: U of Wisconsin - Madison Spanish Department
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd like to see it in English! :-) :-) :-)
--
Gregkarl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (05/23/88)
In article <26531@clyde.ATT.COM> wtr@moss.UUCP (Bill Rankin) writes: >In article <1984@sugar.UUCP> karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) >writes: >>I'm helping a friend of mine who owns a computer store try >to install $1200 worth of Microport software on a 386/20 clone. >It has three meg of RAM and an 80 meg Seagate drive. > >>First off, the surface analysis program doesn't work. It bombs. > >If you are going with the the seagate drive, try using the seagate >DISKMANAGER software (not actually seagate's, but they distribute it >with their drives) boot dos and use this to do your low level & bad >block scan. this tends to make installation a lot easier. this is >not a fault of microport and/or unix, but rather a good point of >dos: it's easier to use a simplistic program loader for basic system >checking/formatting. How many of you out there have a *reliable* system with Microport and the Seagate 80M drives? (ST4096 -- 9 heads, 1024 cyls). We found that this drive *requires* that you set one of the HD options, "Control byte", to 8 (default is zero) or the drive will fail at an indeterminate time in the future (usually within 48 hours). This was consistant with Novell Netware, MSDOS, and Xenix. All three work flawlessly if the control byte is set to "8", and fail with it at "0". Novell's surface analysis has fits immediately, as does Xenix's "comprehehsive test". DOS often works for several hours or days. Uport doesn't allow changing this parameter. I assume the ROM value is used -- which is normally zero! Not many clones have a ROM table entry for the Seagate 4096 drives...... The end result I would expect from this combination would be a failed drive (it's not electrically damaged, just "blown" format-wise) shortly after installation, if it even gets through the file system build. We have not had the time to pull one of these drives and check it out with Uport/386, but some time soon I'm sure we'll find a good excuse to check it out (like when someone orders the combination :-) In any case, I'd be careful, especially if you don't have a drive type for the unit in ROM -- you may find that the drive simply will not work for you. This is the one place where Microport's "dynamic disk configuration" seems to be missing something -- in this case, vital information. If you get nowhere with the Seagate, I'd give a Miniscribe 6085 a shot -- it's a standard type 13 drive, and runs great with the Uport systems. 72M formatted capacity (1024 cyls X 8 heads). --- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910 ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play"
dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (05/24/88)
In article <1101@ddsw1.UUCP>, karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > In article <26531@clyde.ATT.COM> wtr@moss.UUCP (Bill Rankin) writes: > >>I'm helping a friend of mine who owns a computer store try > >to install $1200 worth of Microport software on a 386/20 clone. > >It has three meg of RAM and an 80 meg Seagate drive. > > > How many of you out there have a *reliable* system with Microport and the > Seagate 80M drives? (ST4096 -- 9 heads, 1024 cyls). > > We found that this drive *requires* that you set one of the HD options, > "Control byte", to 8 (default is zero) or the drive will fail at an > used -- which is normally zero! Not many clones have a ROM table entry > for the Seagate 4096 drives...... > Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 > ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play" If using a "modern" disk controller (say post-1986 ROMS) I have had 0.0 problems from my 2-ST4096s. My machine (Everex STEP 386/20) has had over a month of uptime (although preventive maintainance is tomorrow!). No monkeying or dick-factor involved at all. I've also done an install with a Micronics generic clone with similarly non-existant problems. (All with SV/386.) And surface analysis fails but all my new drives have correct data. postnews fodder.... postnews fodder.... postnews fodder.... postnews fodder.... postnews fodder.... -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. ...!{ames|harvard|rutgers|topaz|...}!rochester!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
root@uwspan.UUCP (Sue Peru Sr.) (05/25/88)
+---- Karl Denninger writes in <1101@ddsw1.UUCP> ---- | How many of you out there have a *reliable* system with Microport and the | Seagate 80M drives? (ST4096 -- 9 heads, 1024 cyls). | | We found that this drive *requires* that you set one of the HD options, | "Control byte", to 8 (default is zero) or the drive will fail at an | indeterminate time in the future (usually within 48 hours). | | Uport doesn't allow changing this parameter. I assume the ROM value is | used -- which is normally zero! | | This is the one place where Microport's "dynamic disk configuration" seems | to be missing something -- in this case, vital information. | | Karl Denninger +---- Karl, Uport doesn't let users change this parameter, because the parameter's value can be determined from what you enter for the number of heads. If the number of heads is <= 8, the CB is set to 0, but if the number of heads is ( 8 < HEADS <= 16 ) then the CB is set to 8, just like the doctor ordered. I have the V/AT sources to the programs which do this (fdisk & cousins) and this is indeed what the code does. For V/AT 286 2.3 (I don't know (or really care) about versions before this, since there is no reason to not upgrade since the kernel and drivers are cleaner in 2.3 than in 2.2...). Also for V/386 users there is a new hard disk driver on the BBS which supports RLL, ESDI, etc drives with more than 8 heads and more than 17 SPT. Apparently the current version of V/386 has some limitations in it (I wasn't able to find out just what, but the new driver *is* on the BBS) Version V/386 3.0 ("out in a few weeks") will have a new HD driver with these things included. -John PS: For you trivia buffs, The WD1002 can only handle up to 1024 cyls, the WD1003 can handle up to 2048. The V/AT 2.3 driver can only handle up to 1024. What are the features/limits on the other HD controllers out there? -- Comp.Unix.Microport is now unmoderated! Use at your own risk :-)
jgh@killer.UUCP (Greg Hackney) (05/25/88)
In article <1040@bellboy.UUCP> hack@bellboy.UUCP I write: >>In article <3838@uwspan.UUCP> plocher@uwspan.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >> >> I am in the midst of completely rewriting Microport's low level disk >> installation programs (fdisk, divvy, bad sector mapping...) >> What would you like to see in a *GOOD* set of Unix V/AT low level disk >> utilities? >> Organization: U of Wisconsin - Madison Spanish Department >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I'd like to see it in English! :-) :-) :-) After being flamed to a crisp in my mailbox, I'd like to say that the above comment was meant to be humorous. It was not meant to belittle John Plocher, nor do I have anything against the Univ. of Wisconsin, nor the Spanish speaking community. I think it's great that John is undertaking this task, and wish him the best of success. And it's true that I do not speak Spanish, and that I am too ignorant to post anything of value to help John. -- Greg
plocher@geowhiz.UUCP (John Plocher) (05/26/88)
In article <4176@killer.UUCP> jgh@killer.UUCP (Greg Hackney) writes: >In article <1040@bellboy.UUCP> hack@bellboy.UUCP I write: >>> What would you like to see in a *GOOD* set of Unix V/AT low level disk... >>> Organization: U of Wisconsin - Madison Spanish Department >>I'd like to see it in English! :-) :-) :-) >After being flamed to a crisp in my mailbox, I'd like to say that >the above comment was meant to be humorous. >-- >Greg I'd like to say that when Greg's note showed up here we all had a good laugh! Thanks Greg for making my/our day! I too find the Microport (really AT&T) manuals to be about 2 cm above the level of toilet paper - and that is being generous. Some of the docs for installing packages could very well be in Greek for all I know! (My brother is taking 2nd year Greek - See, I have some experience with it :-) Thanks again! (And yes you do have something I can use - your comments on how *you* think things should be done. After all, *you* are the one who gets saddled with doing them...) -John
scott@cdp.UUCP (05/26/88)
I've also had no troubles with an ST-4096 and an ST-4012 (40MB) on my Everex 386/20 running V/386 2.2 and a WD1002 controller (although I get various flavors of the infamous dial-disk problem with the WD1006 and the Everex-supplied OMTI controller). I've been using this for about a month. -scott
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (05/26/88)
In article <791@geowhiz.UUCP> plocher@uwspan.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >I too find the Microport (really AT&T) manuals to be about 2 cm above the >level of toilet paper - and that is being generous. Some of the docs >for installing packages could very well be in Greek for all I know! >(My brother is taking 2nd year Greek - See, I have some experience with it :-) John may well be right, but in defense of AT&T it should be pointed out that the Microport Manuals are ***not*** unmodified AT&T. Microport seems to have taken the AT&T manuals and done a generous cut-and-paste job on them. Watch out for the changes of typeface in the middle of some of the articles, and even in the middle of standard man pages. The AT&T manuals which I saw with a friend's 3B computer were much more voluminous; Microport seems to have done to them what Readers Digest does to novels for their Condensed Books. Of course condensed novels are much more useful than condensed manuals. The specific stuff John is working on -- i.e. AT hard disk partitioning software -- probably isn't even AT&T's, because it's hardware specific, and so the docs for it probably also are not AT&T's. As for the manuals' proximity to toilet paper -- the paper's just not right, that stuff would scratch somewhat painfully. And it's non-absorbent too -- you'd need tons of it to get the job done. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 INTERNET: wnp@DESEES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
mechjgh@tness1.UUCP (Greg Hackney 214+464-2771) (05/29/88)
In article <489@micropen> dave@micropen.UUCP writes: >In article <26531@clyde.ATT.COM>, wtr@moss.ATT.COM writes: >> In article <1984@sugar.UUCP> karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) >> writes: >> >I'm helping a friend of mine who owns a computer store try >> to install $1200 worth of Microport software on a 386/20 clone. >> It has three meg of RAM and an 80 meg Seagate drive. >> >> >First off, the surface analysis program doesn't work. It bombs. >> >> If you are going with the the seagate drive, try using the seagate >> DISKMANAGER software (not actually seagate's, but they distribute it >> with their drives) boot dos and use this to do your low level & bad >> block scan. this tends to make installation a lot easier. this is > > NOT TAKE THIS ADVICE!!!!!! >Only on SV/AT (ie 286) is the dos bad sector mapping scheme used under >UNIX. On SV/386, the AT vtoc virtual disk mapping scheme is used for >greater SV compatibility. At first I criticized Microport (ie Interactive) >for this but on second thought: I don't trust DOS bad sector mapping for S&%#. >The bad sector mappings are very different and incompatible. >Pedestrian advice is dangerous to your system's health. I used the DiskManager to initialize my Seagate 4096 drive, and didn't have any problems. I think here's the reasons why.... The DM software is designed to work with both DOS partitions, and Xenix and Interactive Unix. I used DM only to do the hardware format, not a surface analysis. Also, I don't have any DOS partitions. I used the uPort surface scan, and it used the mkpart commands to build the Volume Table of Contents (VTOC). My system has run for a month...no errors. But just to try uPort out, I rebuilt the disk using nothing but the uPort tools to format and partition it, and it runs just as well, no problems so far. Several people are amazed that mine runs with no disk errors. I have heard comments like, it's because you aren't running DOS-Merge and don't have DOS partitions, and, it really is taking errors, you just don't know it. But, I have done quite a few disk xfers with sum checks coming out okay. The writers problem with the 4096 drive sounds like a controller or setup configuration problem rather that a uPort problem. -- Greg
scott@cdp.UUCP (06/03/88)
You don't have any disk errors because you only have one disk...if you do DOS formatting without sparing, or Unix formatting, then you have no troubles as long as you only have one disk drive on the controller. -scott