non-SCSI disks on a SCSI disk interface (was Re: Space, the next frontier)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Wed May 26 17:19:35 1999

It's odd that SUN, then, having declared the SCSI on the skids, would have
been the ONE with the most sensible and least fragile connector on their
external cable harnesses. If I had $1 for every time I've had a problem
with external SCSI cable connectors, I could retire in luxury. I've NEVER
had trouble with the D-types, in this case, the DD-50, breaking off
contacts, etc.

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis_at_mcmanis.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: non-SCSI disks on a SCSI disk interface (was Re: Space, the
next frontier)


>At 02:51 PM 5/26/99 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>Sun did this too. [scsi to MFM] ...
>>I think I remember reading somewhere that this was done because the
>>SCSI-to-whatever interface had the intelligence for bad-block
>>remapping. But I wouldn't be surprised to find that the cost of the
>>drives had something to do with it;
>
>Cost has more to do with it than bad blocks, the 4.1BSD disk driver knew
>how to remap bad blocks but with Adaptec and Emulex solutions you could put
>_two_ cheap drives behind a SCSI interface (logical unit 0 and 1) and when
>you did that the costs were significantly less for the scsi+ESDI solution.
>Of course Sun was a huge proponent of IPI, claiming it would wipe SCSI off
>the planet.
>
>--Chuck
>
>
Received on Wed May 26 1999 - 17:19:35 BST