1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Other SAS disks in T5140

Discussion in 'Sun Hardware' started by gt, Aug 29, 2012.

  1. gt

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    This is fascinating. Could this be the fix for today's 4096 byte sector
    drives that lie and screw up ZFS? Or is the problem higher up than this can
    fix?
     
    Nomen Nescio, Sep 3, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. gt

    ChrisQ Guest

    I had the same problem, iirc, with a batch of emc fc drives. They were all
    Seagate, so was able to use the enterprise disk tools (seagate web site),
    which will do a low level format at a different sector size. Only works
    with seagate drives however

    Thanks, That really *is* usefull info and a copy of the above is now in the
    Solaris/general note book :)...

    Regards,

    Chris
     
    ChrisQ, Sep 3, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. gt

    ChrisQ Guest

    That makes sense. Still have a sun 3/60, 3/50 and 3/150 in store. The 3/60
    was my first sun machine back in 1992'ish and arrived with no drives in
    the disk
    enclosure, though the scsi -> esdi card was present. Ended up building 2
    x 766Meg
    esdi drives, 60meg tape and controllers into a different enclosure and
    used that
    for a couple of years before getting a SS1+. Last time I fired the
    system up,
    the psu in the disk box had packed up, but it's on the to do list for
    resurrection
    at some stage.
    Don't think I ever got to the stage of having a >1Gb drive in any of the
    early
    sun systems here. Too expensive at the time, whereas now, there's a
    flood of
    s/user kit to choose from :)...

    Regards,

    Chris
     
    ChrisQ, Sep 3, 2012
    #23
  4. gt

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    It might be -- if the disk's on-board controller allows
    reformatting to 512 byte sectors (which will cause a loss in total
    capacity).

    I know that I did this just so I could use the discs with ZFS,
    and it worked well for that. (There is something about stumbling across
    20 72 GB FC-AL disks at a hamfest for $5.00 each. :)

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Sep 4, 2012
    #24
  5. gt

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    [ ... ]
    Glad that it is where others can benefit from it.

    Where can I get a copy?

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Sep 4, 2012
    #25
  6. gt

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    My first Sun was a 2/120. Then a 3/140 (skinny box, stood on
    end, with only three VME slots, IIRC, then a 3/60, then 3/160 and 3/180
    (The latter a rack-mount beast), and then SPARC, starting with a clone
    of the SS1+ -- Opus, IIRC. I still have pretty much all of them (along
    with my first unix box -- the COSMOS CMS-16/UNX -- a v7 unix port by
    UniSoft, on a 68010 in an Intel MultiBus. I also have my first box, an
    Altair 680b (Motorola 6800 CPU, not the more common Intel 8080.)
    Giving you the choice of putting two ESDI drives in it, or one
    (or zero) disks, and a QIC-60 tape drive, with its own controller/SCSI
    adaptor card.

    With two disks, it was made of lead -- or perhaps gold in
    weight. :)
    Good luck with that.
    Well ... I was still using the Sun3 systems when I got a couple
    of 4GB SCSI drives, and then stumbled across a 9 GB one new (for $900
    IIRC) at a hamfest. I wound up with four of those drives after the
    price dropped. For a while I was running the 3/180 with four disks in a
    rack-mount tray (1 GB was the smallest, IIRC), and I think the 9GB was
    the largest in that tray. I actually bought the tray *new* from a
    vendor who supplied similar ones to us at work.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Sep 4, 2012
    #26
  7. gt

    ChrisQ Guest

    That's very reassuring, sounds like more of a collector than I am, though
    have a friend who shipped two 40ft containers of old kit from the uk to
    NY at
    one stage. He's currently doing a similar exercise, but this time from NY to
    NZ :).

    A 2/120 would be like rocking horse whatever and even rarer in the uk, but
    still have all the aforementioned sun 3's. Had a 3/160 donated at one stage
    and it took 2 of us to lift the box down 2 flights of stairs. I think
    the oldest
    thing here at present is an old pdp11/05, but neither that or the old
    sun kit has
    been used in anger for years.

    You must have had bigger budgets. The two 766's were cdc wren 6, fwir
    and still
    spun up to cylinder fine last time they were powered up. I only had 2Gb
    drives
    during the microvax and vax 8200 days. In fact, all those early machines
    were
    quite slow in real terms, but fast enough once you got the window system
    loaded.
    I think the 3/60 had the max memory of 24 x 1Mb sticks, not enough to do
    anything
    with today's software...

    Regards,

    Chris
     
    ChrisQ, Sep 4, 2012
    #27
  8. gt

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    Well ... I got each of these to *use* them, until something
    better came along. Not really intended as a collection -- I just hate
    getting rid of things which I have used. :)
    Well ... I got it from someone who was moving up to a SS 1 or 1+
    at the time.
    I was seriously using the machines, and the 1 GB SCSI drives
    were around $200.00 each (3-1/2" ones, so I had to make mounting
    adaptors to use them in the larger Sun3 machines. These were Fiji
    drives, IIRC, from a friend who was a dealer in computers at the time,
    so the price was somewhat better.

    But finding a 9GB drive for under $1000 was just too tempting.
    The later three of them were after the price had fallen to about $300.00
    each or less. :)

    BTW I discovered something with the Sun3 machines which had
    me puzzled for a while. I could boot from tape and install the
    OS on the drive with no trouble, but I could not boot from the
    drive.

    It turned out that while a booted OS could handle either parity
    or no parity on the drive, to *boot* it had to have parity off,
    at least on the boot drive. And the SPARC systems *required*
    parity checking turned on, to add to the fun.
    Certainly -- and, of course, I didn't know what speed was
    possible then. Comparing the Sun-3 machines to the Sun Blade 2000 with
    two 1.2 GHz CPUs makes me wonder how I got anything done back then. :)
    Agreed. IIRC, there were two different system boards for the
    3/60 -- one such as you had, which used the 1Mx9 SIMMs, and the other
    which used only 256 K SIMMs. I never had one of those to play with. I
    also never wound up with any of the Sun3x systems, which needed a
    different kernel, because they were using the 68030's built-in memory
    management instead of Sun's own design.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Sep 5, 2012
    #28
  9. Well, that does sound like collecting to me ;-)
    I had one years ago. I think the problem was that only some RAM
    slots would accept 1M SIMMs while the rest needed 256K SIMMs.
    Those machines are pretty interesting. The 3/80 isn't any faster than
    a 3/60, but has internal disks. The 3/470 is a beast as far as 68k goes.
    I have got a 3/470 and it's more than twice as fast as a 3/60. It's a
    much better design than a 3/80.

    Dennis
     
    Dennis Grevenstein, Sep 5, 2012
    #29
  10. gt

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    Just not *intended* as a collection. :)
    That sounds about right. I would have to dig up my old FEH to
    verify that, but it does sound right.
    Hmm ... I wonder whether that was the use of the 68030's memory
    management, or some other factor. Did the 3/470 have more than one CPU?

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Sep 6, 2012
    #30
  11. The 3/470 was just a single CPU box.
    The main difference was that the 470 had some external CPU cache
    and the CPU was clocked at 33MHz. It was a 030 finally done right.
    I guess the 3/80 was too much of a competition to the new SPARCstations,
    so they made it like a cheaper version of a 3/60. 20MHz 020 and 20MHz
    030 doesn't make much of a difference.


    Dennis
     
    Dennis Grevenstein, Sep 6, 2012
    #31
  12. gt

    ChrisQ Guest

    I guess others can benefit from it here short term, but am
    working on a website and it could go there at some stage. Just
    a copy on the server here at present though.

    Ars longa, vita brevis and all that :)...

    Regards,

    Chris
     
    ChrisQ, Sep 6, 2012
    #32
  13. gt

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    Especially since it is using the same compiler, and by default
    avoiding the extra CISC instructions which the 68030 has that the 68020
    does not. (IIRC, it has an instruction which will do the full address
    calculations of access into a two dimensional array of arbitrary sized
    objects -- and fetch the data (or at least start for multi-word sized
    data objects).

    I had a COSMOS CMS-16/UNX (which was a 68000 cpu at 8 MHz on an
    Intel Multibus, with a port of v7 unix done by Unisoft.) Once I needed
    it (or some other system) to do a lot of password crypt crunching (to
    recover the root password on a system which had a guest account without
    password, and which had a hidden fuse in the power supply blown -- this
    so I could actually use the system in question.

    I combined the /usr/dict/words files from that box, from the one
    being cracked, and from a AT&T 7300 (Unix-PC -- 68010 10 MHz), and wrote
    a program to call the crypt routine with a fixed salt stepping through
    the words file. I started it on the 68000, got impatient, and started
    it running on the 7300, and it did not take long for it to pass the
    v7 box -- a lot quicker than should have happened based on the 8 MHz vs
    10 MHz clock difference.

    At a later time, I asked both compilers to stop at the assembly
    language source of the same code, and discovered that the code in the
    7300 was a *lot* tighter. Looking at the v7 system's code, I would have
    to say that they were having the compiler treat the 68000 as a PDP-11
    and never use any instructions which were not similar to that in the
    PDP-11 -- except that they *did* at least use the LINK and ULINK
    instructions which created and destroyed the stack frame on the 68000.
    So -- anything from that compiler would be very much slower (and a lot
    more instructions) than that on the 7300.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Sep 7, 2012
    #33
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.