FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (04/24/91)
Is there a reason why no programmer has followed up with a SCSI network? We have alternative file systems (MSH), and PD SCSI tape drivers and PD networking (parnet/sernet/dnet) but no SCSINet. Is it really difficult? No one has a use for it, maybe? If written to isolate hardware with seperate modules for Amiga and PC hardware it could be compiled for both and then couldn't the two machines talk to each other over the SCSI bus? Seems like such a Neat Thing I'm surprised there isn't more interest in it. Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
mmm@reaper.Chi.IL.US (Michael Marvin Morrison) (04/27/91)
In article <41587@cup.portal.com> FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) writes: >Is there a reason why no programmer has followed up with a SCSI network? >We have alternative file systems (MSH), and PD SCSI tape drivers and PD >networking (parnet/sernet/dnet) but no SCSINet. Is it really difficult? >No one has a use for it, maybe? If written to isolate hardware with >seperate modules for Amiga and PC hardware it could be compiled for both >and then couldn't the two machines talk to each other over the SCSI bus? >Seems like such a Neat Thing I'm surprised there isn't more interest in >it. > >Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com It sounds like a neat Idea, and it is, but the problem is finding a SCSI card that can act as a TARGET *and* an INITIATOR. None of the controllers I know of can EASILY do this, and still use their current ROMS, except maybe the ICD card. A buddy of mine who used to work for ICD, but now works for Commodore (Jerry, if you read this, send me EMail!!) *was* working on it. For instance, a 2091 (and probably the 3000's controller) would require you to remove the ROMS to talk directly to the SCSI chip to properly emulate a target. Some company sells one for 500's called 'SCSINet' but it costs like $700. -- Michael M Morrison /| |\ mmm@reaper.chi.il.us <or> | | Cash, for Cache.. | | reaper!mmm@miroc.chi.il.us \| Hmm.. sounds fair. |/
billsey@nesbbx.UUCP (Bill Seymour) (05/01/91)
In article <41587@cup.portal.com>, Dana B Bourgeois writes:
: Is there a reason why no programmer has followed up with a SCSI network?
: We have alternative file systems (MSH), and PD SCSI tape drivers and PD
: networking (parnet/sernet/dnet) but no SCSINet. Is it really difficult?
: No one has a use for it, maybe? If written to isolate hardware with
: seperate modules for Amiga and PC hardware it could be compiled for both
: and then couldn't the two machines talk to each other over the SCSI bus?
: Seems like such a Neat Thing I'm surprised there isn't more interest in
: it.
:
: Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
I think the biggest reason is first that very few, if any, of the
SCSI cards for the Amiga support changing thier device ID, so you can only
have one card per SCSI bus. Second, no one is doing the software to handle
multiple hosts on a SCSI bus. Both of these have to be addressed before
anyone could do a NET: style implementation on SCSI.
-Bill Seymour nesbbx!billsey@agora.uucp or nesbbx!billsey@agora.rain.com
***** American People/Link Amiga Zone Hardware Specialist NES*BILL *****
Bejed, Inc. NES, Inc. NAG BBS NES BBX BBS Home Sometimes
(503)281-8153 (503)246-9311 (503)656-7393 (503)640-9337 (503) 640-0842FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (05/03/91)
After posting my question to the net I got several thoughtful responses from people who said..."neat idea but here's the problem" So I asked Randall Jessup about it and he said there are two main problems. One is that all current SCSI drivers (known to RJ) such as the CBM one are neither designed to share the hardWare nor are designed to act as targets to SCSI commands. So a new driver would have to be developed that would handle both the drives and networking. Also reselection, I suppose. :) So it isn't an incremental development like I thought. It is new development. Too bad though. I still think the idea has merit. Built- in inter-computer communications. Sounds sorta like another computer I can think of. But *this* would be at 1/3 Ethernet speed not 1/20. Worth a look by the marketing guys, no? Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
bpv9073@sjfc.UUCP (Brett VanSprewenburg) (05/04/91)
In article <191126f1.ARN0079@nesbbx.UUCP> billsey@nesbbx.UUCP writes: >In article <41587@cup.portal.com>, Dana B Bourgeois writes: > >: Is there a reason why no programmer has followed up with a SCSI network? > > I think the biggest reason is first that very few, if any, of the >SCSI cards for the Amiga support changing thier device ID, so you can only >have one card per SCSI bus. Second, no one is doing the software to handle >multiple hosts on a SCSI bus. Both of these have to be addressed before >anyone could do a NET: style implementation on SCSI. > The Xetec controller does, and even the manual talks about more then 1 computer using the same drive. Essentially a small SCSI network. They also speak of using MORE then 2 computers on the SCSI bus. The SCSI controller device can have it's ID changed two ways: new ROM from XETEC or in the INFO of the Xetec device driver icon. Nice eh? Need more info? Let me know. ==Brett