rajs@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Rajeev Seth) (11/19/90)
I was going to get an Everex 60MB tape backup for my Interactive Unix 2.2
running on a 80386 PC, with these characterstics:
writes QIC-24 format on DC600 tapes on an OEMd
Wangtek 5099 drive.
My question is that if tar has been used
to write the tapes is it sufficient to take the tape across to the other
machines/unixes such as 386/SCO Unix, Sun/SunOS, Esix, etc., put it in
another QIC-24 reading tape drive
that is attached to the machine and be able to read it in OR do I have to have
an EXTERNAL Everex drive which I will physically lug from one system to
another and read back the tapes from it.
Everex tech support told me that it is not good enough that two different
tape drives/machines read/write QIC-24 because the controller card for the
drive has some security PAL chip that attempts to make sure data is read
back on the same machine it was archived from. Do you guys find this to be
true with other brand drives or not?
Thank you for helping me make sense out of this undocumented world of
compatibility and interoperability issues for tape drives. If it really
not so compatible then I would probably buy a cheaper 40 MB floppy tape
drive (such as Colorado Jumbo). What is your experience with those. Are
those any less reliable?
--
Rajeev Seth
IND, HP, 19420 Homestead Road, MS 43LH, Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel: (408) 447-3573
Unix mail: ..!{hplabs, uunet}!hpindbu.cup.hp.com!rajsrcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (11/20/90)
rajs@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Rajeev Seth) writes: > I was going to get an Everex 60MB tape backup for my Interactive Unix 2.2 > running on a 80386 PC... ... > Everex tech support told me that it is not good enough that two different > tape drives/machines read/write QIC-24 because the controller card for the > drive has some security PAL chip that attempts to make sure data is read > back on the same machine it was archived from. Do you guys find this to be > true with other brand drives or not? Not only do we not find it to be true with other brand drives; I barely find it believable. I sincerely hope Everex tech support is either pulling your leg (why?) or massively confused. Why would someone want a tape drive that cannot be used to create tapes for interchange? I've swapped notes with people who have Everex drives, and they're folks I can't imagine wanting this sort of machine-specific drive. Frankly, I don't believe it, but I *would* like to know the real story behind it. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 Cellular phones: more deadly than marijuana.
chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov20.000121.23207@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >rajs@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Rajeev Seth) writes: >> Everex tech support told me that it is not good enough that two different >> tape drives/machines read/write QIC-24 because the controller card for the >> drive has some security PAL chip [...] >Not only do we not find it to be true with other brand drives; I barely >find it believable. Of course not. If they did that, it wouldn't be QIC-24 anymore! I think the confusion might be that Bell Tech used to OEM somebody's tape controller card (Everex?) and there was a PAL which prevented the adapters and drives from being interchanged. But as far as media compatibility, if a drive can write QIC-24, then it can swap tapes with a drive which can read QIC-24. If it can't, then one of the two is broke. Three cheers for standards. -- Chip Rosenthal 512-482-8260 | We was raising insurance premiums, ma. Unicom Systems Development | We was spreading fear of arson. <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM> | - Michelle Shocked
larry@nstar (Larry Snyder) (11/20/90)
rajs@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Rajeev Seth) writes: >I was going to get an Everex 60MB tape backup for my Interactive Unix 2.2 >running on a 80386 PC, with these characterstics: > writes QIC-24 format on DC600 tapes on an OEMd > Wangtek 5099 drive. >My question is that if tar has been used >to write the tapes is it sufficient to take the tape across to the other >machines/unixes such as 386/SCO Unix, Sun/SunOS, Esix, etc., put it in >another QIC-24 reading tape drive It should work - but these days 150 meg tapes are the commonplace - not 60 meg tapes - it would be a shame to go the 60 meg route unless your other hardware only had 60 meg tape units and you didn't plan on adding large drives.. Another approach that I would suggest would be to network all the boxes and add one tape drive.. -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA {larry@nstar, {uunet|backbone}!nstar!larry, larry%nstar@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu} backbone usenet newsfeeds available Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)
tron@db.toronto.edu ("Carlos G. Mendioroz") (11/20/90)
chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >In article <1990Nov20.000121.23207@ico.isc.com> > rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >>rajs@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Rajeev Seth) writes: >>> Everex tech support told me that it is not good enough that two different >>> tape drives/machines read/write QIC-24 because the controller card for the >>> drive has some security PAL chip [...] >>Not only do we not find it to be true with other brand drives; I barely >>find it believable. >Of course not. If they did that, it wouldn't be QIC-24 anymore! >I think the confusion might be that Bell Tech used to OEM somebody's tape >controller card (Everex?) and there was a PAL which prevented the adapters >and drives from being interchanged. And if they did that, it would't be QIC-02 anymore... I think that the PAL's referred are those locating the control regs of the controller. That way a driver for one card can't be used with another card. E.G. wangtek PC-36 controllers have two control regs one at adddress X (selectable) and the other at X+1. Some dealers change PAL's to bring that to X+2...
jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) (11/21/90)
In article <53180005@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, rajs@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Rajeev Seth) writes: > My question is that if tar has been used to write the tapes is it sufficient > to take the tape across to the other machines/unixes such as 386/SCO Unix, > Sun/SunOS, Esix, etc., put it in another QIC-24 reading tape drive > that is attached to the machine and be able to read it I suggest using cpio with the -c option (write headers in ascii for portability) instead of tar. tar is often/sometimes/maybe portable, but cpio -c was written to be so. > Everex tech support told me that it is not good enough that two different > tape drives/machines read/write QIC-24 because the controller card for the > drive has some security PAL chip that attempts to make sure data is read > back on the same machine it was archived from. Do you guys find this to be > true with other brand drives or not? I find that to be incredibly surprising. If true, it is enough to make me stop using Everex tape drives forever. I have access to an Everex drive (well, actually it's 160 mi. away right now) and other QIC-24 drives, so I'll certainly try it out! Jay Ts Metran Technology uunet!pdn!tscs!metran!jay
barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) (11/22/90)
In article <335@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes: >In article <53180005@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, rajs@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Rajeev Seth) writes: >> Everex tech support told me that it is not good enough that two different >> tape drives/machines read/write QIC-24 because the controller card for the >> drive has some security PAL chip that attempts to make sure data is read >> back on the same machine it was archived from. Do you guys find this to be >> true with other brand drives or not? Hmmm..I have found this to *NOT* be true at all, as I have a customer that has 3 boxes all with Everex QIC-24 drives and we regularly move tapes back and forth between all three. -- uucp: holston!barton pseudo: barton@holston.UUCP
jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com (Jim Deitch) (11/22/90)
In article <1712@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >In article <1990Nov20.000121.23207@ico.isc.com> > rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >>rajs@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Rajeev Seth) writes: >>> Everex tech support told me that it is not good enough that two different >>> tape drives/machines read/write QIC-24 because the controller card for the >>> drive has some security PAL chip [...] >>Not only do we not find it to be true with other brand drives; I barely >>find it believable. > >Of course not. If they did that, it wouldn't be QIC-24 anymore! > >I think the confusion might be that Bell Tech used to OEM somebody's tape >controller card (Everex?) and there was a PAL which prevented the adapters >and drives from being interchanged. > >But as far as media compatibility, if a drive can write QIC-24, then it >can swap tapes with a drive which can read QIC-24. If it can't, then one >of the two is broke. > >Three cheers for standards. I don't think the security pal has to do with drive swaps. In the DOS software field, there is a big tape drive software company that has a pal on the cards that their software checks for. If the bytes it is looking for don't exist then the software will not work. Stops you from taking the software over to another machine and using it with an "inferior" drive/controller combination. Jim -- ARPANET: jadpc!jdeitch@nosc.mil INTERNET: jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com UUCP: nosc!jadpc!jdeitch
chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) (11/23/90)
In article <1990Nov22.090941.7209@jadpc.cts.com> jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com (Jim Deitch) writes: >In article <1712@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >>there was a PAL which prevented the adapters and drives from being >>interchanged. >I don't think the security pal has to do with drive swaps. You are absolutely correct - my memory has been restored. The issue was controller/driver compatibility, not controller/drive compatibility. -- Chip Rosenthal 512-482-8260 | We was raising insurance premiums, ma. Unicom Systems Development | We was spreading fear of arson. <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM> | - Michelle Shocked