sfisher@apple.com (Stephen Fisher) (09/26/90)
Well, I took the plunge and ordered my slab today. After much debate, I decided to get the 105M hard disk and buy an external SCSI drive. Now comes the hard part: which drive and from whom? Ideally I'd like to get a ~330M drive, so that I can use the internal drive for backup, etc. I looked in MacWeek and saw some reasonble deals (a Wren and a Maxtor for around 1500), but are these usuable on the NeXT??? Are there better drives (or cheaper dealers)?? Thanks in advance for any help. Steve
tgoldtho@ccng.uwaterloo.ca (Thomas A. Goldthorpe) (09/26/90)
In article <45139@apple.Apple.COM> sfisher@apple.com (Stephen Fisher) writes: > >Well, I took the plunge and ordered my slab today. After much debate, >I decided to get the 105M hard disk and buy an external SCSI drive. >Now comes the hard part: which drive and from whom? Ideally I'd like >to get a ~330M drive, so that I can use the internal drive for >backup, etc. I looked in MacWeek and saw some reasonble deals >(a Wren and a Maxtor for around 1500), but are these usuable >on the NeXT??? Are there better drives (or cheaper dealers)?? > >Thanks in advance for any help. >Steve Well, I have put a few gig of third party drives onto a NeXT already. It works well. No third party software is required for this operation. All you need to do is make the appropriate entries in some of the /private/etc files and use a few NeXT supplied routines. Assuming that in 2.0 they didn't change it that much (there isn't that much to do to add any drive of the SCSI type, provided the disk port likes it:-)), there should be no problems. The low level format can be a problem in some cases. Most drives are already low-level formatted, but the buyer can't be guaranteed of the interleave or if the disk's built in cache has been enabled. This is where your favorite mac is useful (see I told you a mac was good for something:-)). Use a program like micronet utility to do this simple job. The rest is done by the NeXT (thankfully). Mail me for details. Tom tag@sunee.waterloo.edu
haugelan@unix.cis.pitt.edu (John C. Haugeland) (09/27/90)
Lots of people seem to have the same idea: since 105 mb isn't enough,
and NeXT charges too much for the 340 mb upgrade, the best move is to
add a third party drive to the basic NeXTstation via the SCSI port.
The question is: what to add? Now if we take the 340 mb upgrade as an
indication of how much total capacity to aim for, the 210 mb external
Quantum would seem the nominal default choice. Lots of Mac sources
sell that for around a thousand dollars.
What I'm wondering about is the merits/demerits of the following
alternative. The same Mac sources also all sell an external Syquest
drive with a 44 mb removable cartridge for around $700, and extra
cartridges for about $75. So the same thousand dollars would also
get a comparable 220 mb total capacity by this other route. Some
relative advantages and disadvantages are pretty obvious:
Advantages:
-- capacity can be expanded incrementally and cheaply
(cartridges run about $1.50/mb)
-- the system can be used for backup (especially important
if your system is stand-alone -- ie, not networked)
Disadvantages:
-- Only 150 mb online at a time -- some disk swapping may
be necessary on occasion
-- Somewhat slower -- Syquest average access = only 25 ms
Is it as simple as this? What am I missing? What do people with
more experience than I know/think about this idea?
John Haugeland
haugelan@unix.cis.pitt.edu
jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) (09/27/90)
/ comp.sys.next / haugelan@unix.cis.pitt.edu (John C. Haugeland) / Sep 26 '90 / > What I'm wondering about is the merits/demerits of the following > alternative. The same Mac sources also all sell an external Syquest > drive with a 44 mb removable cartridge for around $700, and extra > cartridges for about $75. [...] > Disadvantages: > -- Only 150 mb online at a time -- some disk swapping may > be necessary on occasion Well, setting up the Release 2.0 Extended directory tree on a bunch of these removable cartridges will be tricky. Are you sure you can get the auto disk mounter to deal with these cartridges? If not, you'll have to keep using mount & umount as root. Jacob -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Com boulder!gore!jacob
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (09/29/90)
In article <1990Sep25.234935.1501@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, tgoldtho@ccng.uwaterloo.ca (Thomas A. Goldthorpe) writes: |> The low level format can be a problem in some cases. Most drives are already |> low-level formatted, but the buyer can't be guaranteed of the interleave or |> if the disk's built in cache has been enabled. This is where your favorite |> mac is useful (see I told you a mac was good for something:-)). Use a |> program like micronet utility to do this simple job. The rest is done |> by the NeXT (thankfully). Mail me for details. Most importantly the sector size is almost always set to 512byte/sec instead of 1024byte/sector. This usually enhances throughput AND capacity of a disk. A program that does cache enabling and low-level formatting on the NeXT is available from us. Send mail to this account for more information. I also should mention, that the Mac programs I know of allow not for a change in sector size, but only things like caching. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tgoldtho@ccng.uwaterloo.ca (Thomas A. Goldthorpe) (10/01/90)
In article <51560@brunix.UUCP> rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: > >Most importantly the sector size is almost always set to 512byte/sec instead >of 1024byte/sector. This usually enhances throughput AND capacity of a disk. >A program that does cache enabling and low-level formatting on the NeXT is >available from us. Send mail to this account for more information. >I also should mention, that the Mac programs I know of allow not for a change >in sector size, but only things like caching. > >Ronald I wouldn't trust your program for now, however. Until NeXT officially releases info on what to do for third party products, the program might be broken without you even knowing it. You also don't seem to mention the problem with /etc/disktab and the 512/1024 byte sector problem. Such stuff also needs fixing first. So for now I advise people to stick with what is supplied with the system. At least it works and gives me nearly twice the performance on a cheap 600Mbyte drive than with the maxtor supplied with the system. I won't complain about that kind of a gain for now (though better may be possible). Note in 2.0 things may be fixed, I don't have it yet and therefore don't know. BTW, only one of the mac utilities I used didn't have a sector length paramter. Besides most always use the 512 byte size, which is what I need anyway. Just my $0.02 Tom
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct1.044754.21637@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tgoldtho@ccng.uwaterloo.ca (Thomas A. Goldthorpe) writes: >In article <51560@brunix.UUCP> rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: >> >>Most importantly the sector size is almost always set to 512byte/sec instead >>of 1024byte/sector. This usually enhances throughput AND capacity of a disk. >I wouldn't trust your program for now, however. Until >NeXT officially releases info on what to do for third party products, the >program might be broken without you even knowing it. To use a drive you don't need NeXT's info, you need just a standard SCSI driver that NeXT supplies and and info on the drive. The fact that we use our own product gives me enough trust... >You also don't seem >to mention the problem with /etc/disktab and the 512/1024 byte sector >problem. Such stuff also needs fixing first. There is no such thing as a 512/1024 byte sector 'problem'. Neither is there a disktab 'problem'. Of course you should reformat your drive and of course you need a correct disktab entry, but that's why you want to use a tool like TheFormatter or get some disks that are preformatted using such a tool. We supply people with the disktab entries they need and we also tell them clearly which parameters to use when low-level formatting the drive. So please WHERE is the problem? So who want's it least complicated and has a budget to pay for it should go for NeXT's stuff. But there are a lot of people that can't afford the configuration they need when buying from NeXT. And these better look for a solution like the one we supply. If they want the drives preformatted, they can also call 1-800-cube-rte. The people there sell preformatted drives for the NeXT. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet
tgoldtho@ccng.waterloo.edu (Thomas A. Goldthorpe) (10/09/90)
In article <52457@brunix.UUCP> rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: > >There is no such thing as a 512/1024 byte sector 'problem'. Neither is >there a disktab 'problem'. Of course you should reformat your drive > The problem is simple. Under 1.0 the disktab file only supports 1024 byte blocks. You will find this info right at the top of that file. For 512 byte the simple fix is to specify that it is a 1024 byte block and work on the rest of the entries under that assumption. Very simple, allows any drive to be entered (seems to me the last time I saw TheFormatter it only supported one type of drive, it may now be enhanced, I don't know that part). I've done this myself on a machine which now has 2GBytes of disk on it, I therefore KNOW it works, and all I had to do is modify disktab and use 'disk' to lay out the file system. As far as low level formatting goes, I mentioned what to do weeks ago. Now do me a favor and stop arguing over the news. I post my method because it works, you post yours for the same reason. Tom
agm@cs.brown.edu (Axel Merk) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct8.214307.26670@ccng.waterloo.edu> tgoldtho@ccng.waterloo.edu (Thomas A. Goldthorpe) writes: >In article <52457@brunix.UUCP> rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: >> >>There is no such thing as a 512/1024 byte sector 'problem'. Neither is >>there a disktab 'problem'. Of course you should reformat your drive >> > >The problem is simple. Under 1.0 the disktab file only supports >1024 byte blocks. You will find this info right at the top of that >file. For 512 byte the simple fix is to specify that it is a >1024 byte block and work on the rest of the entries under that >assumption. Very simple, allows any drive to be entered (seems to >me the last time I saw TheFormatter it only supported one type of >drive, it may now be enhanced, I don't know that part). I've done >this myself on a machine which now has 2GBytes of disk on it, I >therefore KNOW it works, and all I had to do is modify disktab >and use 'disk' to lay out the file system. As far as low level >formatting goes, I mentioned what to do weeks ago. Now do me >a favor and stop arguing over the news. I post my method because >it works, you post yours for the same reason. > >Tom This is not a simple *fix* - it lets your drive run, that's all. Nothing is fixed, however: the drive is still formatted at 512 bytes per sector. At the top-level, two 512 byte-blocks are bundled together. In other words: - you lose speed by bundling and because 512 bytes/sector is not the fastest way to access data for the big drives. - you lose space by using 512 bytes/sector (a lot more information needs to be stored to keep twice as many sectors). Don't tell me, they are equivalent, please - at a 1GB drive, you lose about 50MB of disk space and 15-25% speed. Yes, it works, but the low-level format is a lot more efficient. Axel P.s. TheFormatter works for WrenV, WrenVI, WrenVII. Other Wren drives are on their way, so are Maxtor drives.
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (10/09/90)
In article <52489@brunix.UUCP> agm@cs.brown.edu (Axel Merk) writes: >Nothing is fixed, however: the drive is still formatted at 512 bytes >per sector. At the top-level, two 512 byte-blocks are bundled >together. >In other words: >- you lose speed by bundling and because 512 bytes/sector is not the >fastest way to access data for the big drives. >- you lose space by using 512 bytes/sector (a lot more information >needs to be stored to keep twice as many sectors). This bothers me. We recently received our second "660 MB with HP controller" (direct from NeXT!) and it's formatted for 512. The first came installed in a cube, and it only lasted a few days before needing replacement ... with a genuine Maxtor that's been working fine, of course. Here's what scsimodes has to say about it: Drive type: HP 97548S 512 bytes per sector 56 sectors per track 16 tracks per cylinder 1522 cylinder per volume (including spare cylinders) 1 spare sectors per track 140 alternate tracks per volume 1354751 usable sectors on volume This sucker's noisy too... so was the first one. (There's more "horror story" here--but I'll leave that for now.) This is what NeXT used to ship us: Drive type: MAXTOR XT-8760S 1024 bytes per sector 28 sectors per track 15 tracks per cylinder 1632 cylinder per volume (including spare cylinders) 4 spare sectors per cylinder 45 alternate tracks per volume 676415 usable sectors on volume These were GREAT disks. I guess it's time to start exploring 3rd party sources. (And order new color systems while NeXT still ships Sony monitors???) -=EPS=- -- Several people, on seeing the literature for the NeXTstation have commented "Euuu! Quantum drives!" and cited that as the best reason not to buy one.
tgoldtho@ccng.waterloo.edu (Thomas A. Goldthorpe) (10/09/90)
>This is not a simple *fix* - it lets your drive run, that's all. >Nothing is fixed, however: the drive is still formatted at 512 bytes >per sector. At the top-level, two 512 byte-blocks are bundled >together. I know this is not the best way to do it. If you remember my post from long long (many months) ago, this method was to allow those people with 512byte/sec MAC drives to connect them without much hassle or worry. >In other words: >- you lose speed by bundling and because 512 bytes/sector is not the >fastest way to access data for the big drives. >- you lose space by using 512 bytes/sector (a lot more information >needs to be stored to keep twice as many sectors). > >Don't tell me, they are equivalent, please - at a 1GB drive, you lose >about 50MB of disk space and 15-25% speed. I didn't say they are equivalent. READ THE PRINT INSTEAD OF READING SOMETHING INTO IT. THIS IS THE EASIEST WAY FOR A USER TO PUT ANY MAC DRIVE ONTO THE NeXT WITHOUT MUCH HASSLE. THE FACT THAT THIS DISCUSSION COMES FROM ANSWERING A HELP WANTED ON NON-FUNCTIONAL DRIVE IS BEYOND ME. WHY DIDN'T YOU QUESTION THIS METHOD THOSE MANY MONTHS AGO? >Yes, it works, but the low-level format is a lot more efficient. I do agree that there are much better ways, which reminds me, even the maxtor that came with the machine I use was done with this method. >P.s. TheFormatter works for WrenV, WrenVI, WrenVII. Other Wren drives >are on their way, so are Maxtor drives. Fine. Now stop wasting the bandwidth on a silly argument. My post was for a method which is a relatively easy way to do things for those who wanted to use a mac drive (which at the time TheFormatter didn't support). Thats all. Tom