hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) (01/16/91)
Several people reponded to my post and stated that the latest patch for
AIX PS/2 1.2 is 1008, with 1009 to be released VERY soon (or already).
Thanks to all that responded.
I have two more questions.
1.) 1009 is supposed to be available in both floppy and tape format.
Which tape format? I bet the it's the 6257 (?#), and that the
IBM Internal Tape Backup Unit has been neglected again. Does anyone
know?
2.) Will 1009 support SCSI hard disks of greater than 512 MB capacity?
Either somebody made a very shortsighted mistake in limiting the
installation code to SCSI disks < 512MB, or IBM is intentionally trying
to screw those people that wish to use anything but IBM SCSI disks. If it
was just an unintentional mistake, then surely it has been corrected
by now. Surely?
hh
--
Harry Haas GTRI/RIDL/DB "What makes it DO that!?" - Bones
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!hh2
Internet: hh2@prism.gatech.edu hhaas@{gtri01|rmadsun}.gatech.edujeffs@soul.esd.sgi.com (Jeff Smith) (01/17/91)
|> 1.) 1009 is supposed to be available in both floppy and tape format. |> Which tape format? I bet the it's the 6257 (?#), and that the |> IBM Internal Tape Backup Unit has been neglected again. Does anyone |> know? I doubt they will support the ITBU. My $$ would be on the 6157-001. |> 2.) Will 1009 support SCSI hard disks of greater than 512 MB capacity? |> Either somebody made a very shortsighted mistake in limiting the |> installation code to SCSI disks < 512MB, or IBM is intentionally trying |> to screw those people that wish to use anything but IBM SCSI disks. If it |> was just an unintentional mistake, then surely it has been corrected |> by now. Surely? Until recently I had a PS/2 with 2 620M RS/6000 external SCSI's hooked up to the cached adapter no problem. The machine is still running with one of these drives. However I had the OS on a 120M ESDI drive. There are hacks to allow installation on any disk, which somebody from LCC could probably post. jeffs@sgi.com (ex-AIX and other random UNIX OS on PS/2 development)
hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) (01/17/91)
In article <1991Jan17.002027.16571@odin.corp.sgi.com> jeffs@soul.esd.sgi.com (Jeff Smith) writes: >|> 1.) 1009 is supposed to be available in both floppy and tape format. >|> Which tape format? I bet the it's the 6257 (?#), and that the >|> IBM Internal Tape Backup Unit has been neglected again. Does anyone >|> know? > >I doubt they will support the ITBU. My $$ would be on the 6157-001. I received a note from John Canning . . . |I do not know about Large SCSI's. We have been told that 1009 will |be available on a tape which can be read by our internal tape drives. | |Heaven help them if this is not the case. I second the "heaven help" them . . . . If they can't support their own hardware, who else in thier right mind would, and therefore, why should we buy it ?!! >|> 2.) Will 1009 support SCSI hard disks of greater than 512 MB capacity? >|> Either somebody made a very shortsighted mistake in limiting the >|> installation code to SCSI disks < 512MB, or IBM is intentionally trying >|> to screw those people that wish to use anything but IBM SCSI >|> disks. >|> If it was just an unintentional mistake, then surely it has been >|> corrected by now. Surely? > >Until recently I had a PS/2 with 2 620M RS/6000 external SCSI's hooked up to >the cached adapter no problem. The machine is still running with one of >these drives. However I had the OS on a 120M ESDI drive. There are hacks to >allow installation on any disk, which somebody from LCC could probably post. > >jeffs@sgi.com >(ex-AIX and other random UNIX OS on PS/2 development) I performed a "hack" myself, as instructed by a very kind and generous AIX user. AIX installed (aparently) fine, but I now cannot use my Internal Tape Backup, nor can I enable my serial port. Since the only change was the hack, I must assume . . Either way, if IBM claims to provide SCSI compatibility, what's the *$^@^ problem ??? hh -- Harry Haas GTRI/RIDL/DB "What makes it DO that!?" - Bones Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!hh2 Internet: hh2@prism.gatech.edu hhaas@{gtri01|rmadsun}.gatech.edu
richp@romulus.la.locus.com (Richard L. Pettit Jr.) (01/17/91)
In article <19761@hydra.gatech.EDU> hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) writes: >2.) Will 1009 support SCSI hard disks of greater than 512 MB capacity? > Either somebody made a very shortsighted mistake in limiting the > installation code to SCSI disks < 512MB, or IBM is intentionally trying > to screw those people that wish to use anything but IBM SCSI disks. If it > was just an unintentional mistake, then surely it has been corrected > by now. Surely? Not so surely. I'd like to take this oportunity NOT to defend IBM but to simply state history and logic. If IBM does not offer for sale any SCSI disks that are > 512MB then it seems that it may be the case that functional verification of driver code for that part may never have occurred. Even if in their best intentions Locus wanted to verify that their SCSI driver worked with such a drive, from where would the drive come ? Would IBM pay for a non-IBM part for them to test on ? Not likely. In fact not at all. AIX PS/2 was written for the PS/2 and will work with advertised PS/2 components. This is unfortunate, but true. Personally, I'd much rather be using AIX on my clone-at-home than ODT. Rich ---- Richard Pettit Locus Computing Corp. richp@locus.com "Opinions expressed herein are of the author, not (LCC or IBM)"
jeffs@soul.esd.sgi.com (Jeff Smith) (01/18/91)
In article <19820@hydra.gatech.EDU>, hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) writes: |> I second the "heaven help" them . . . . If they can't support their |> own hardware, who else in thier right mind would, and therefore, why |> should we buy it ?!! There really is no good explination, other than the people making the cards in IBM probably outnumber the people doing work on AIX/PS2 (and probably by an order of magnitude). AIX on the PS/2 has never had much support from IBM. |> I performed a "hack" myself, as instructed by a very kind and generous |> AIX user. AIX installed (aparently) fine, but I now cannot use my Internal |> Tape Backup, nor can I enable my serial port. Since the only change was the |> hack, I must assume . . Either way, if IBM claims to provide SCSI compatibility, |> what's the *$^@^ problem ??? Well, this really isn't a SCSI compatability problem. It's a brain dead method of installation. Why on earth do they have a config for each size disk? Maybe for small disks, where space is a problem, but for big disks (200M or >) they should give standard partitions for the next smallest drive, and leave the rest as free space.... I don't know about the 2 devices not working. If the floppy works, the ITBU should work. I can't see how this would break the serial port, but software is like witchcraft sometimes... Good luck, I know this stuff is frustrating. jeffs@sgi.com
richp@romulus.la.locus.com (Richard L. Pettit Jr.) (01/18/91)
In article <1991Jan17.225248.5539@odin.corp.sgi.com> jeffs@soul.esd.sgi.com (Jeff Smith) writes: >probably by an order of magnitude). AIX on the PS/2 has never had >much support from IBM. Oh, thank you Jeff for pointing this out and NOT being a Locus employee. I've been screaming bloody murder to Locus management since day one that IBM treats AIX PS/2 & 370 as the ugly stepchild just as it does to any OS that wasn't developed by IBM or Microsoft. If I may babble for a moment, I really like the 386/486 architecture. And even though I hoped that IBM would go down in flames when it turned it's back on an industry effort to standardize the 32 bit bus for PCs back in the '86-87 time frame, I still like the PS/2 and the microchannel. As far as I'm concerned there is *no better* operating system to be had for the [34]86 architecture even though it will only run on a PS/2. There is more bias towards BSD 4.3 in that statement than there is towards the product that is sold by the company for which I'm employed. I won't bother pointing out all the "features" of other UNIX OSs that are available for these processors that make AIX PS/2 all the more desirable. I've wasted enough bandwidth as it is. Rich ---- Richard Pettit Locus Computing Corp. richp@locus.com "Opinions expressed herein are of the author, not (LCC or IBM)"