BA123 and disks (RE: QBUS SCSI card...)

From: Fred N. van Kempen <Fred.van.Kempen_at_microwalt.nl>
Date: Mon Feb 24 10:55:00 2003

True, the various ESDI disks are proving to be a fine and reliable
replacement for the RD drives, using the same form factor. My MV4
(in a BA123) has three Hitachi drives, 680MB each, and are emulated
as RA82's. Nice, reliable and _fast_ !

These drives, and the controllers (Sigma, ADC, Emulex, Dilog) are
real cheap now.

--f

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mail List [mailto:mail.list_at_analog-and-digital-solutions.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:38 PM
> To: cctalk_at_classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: QBUS SCSI card...
>
>
> Hello Gene,
>
> Even though RD-5x fit in there fine, what is probably an inexpensive
> but more reliable solution than the RD-5x is to go with 5.25" FH
> ESDI drives as some other "personal users" have done. They
> come in larger storage capacities than the RD-5x drives too.
> Pick up a Sigma SCD-RQD11/EC when it shows up on eBay
> for around $35 to $50 ( or even less these days? ), and ask
> Mark Green about an ESDI drive. He got all four ( some of them
> around 600 Mb ) that I had a couple of years ago for what would
> have averaged out to $10 each ( plus shipping ).
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
>
> At 06:57 AM 2/24/03 -0800, you wrote:
> > > > That's just amazing. I never knew the demand for
> those things was that
> > > > high. I wish the guy that was doing the IDE
> controllers had entered
> > > > production. :)
> > >
> > > I think a lot of people, "personal users" too, are
> getting tired of
> > struggling
> > > with RD-5x drive unreliability, and/or want the larger
> storage capacities
> > > they could obtain with SCSI
> >
> >Well I've got a KDA-50 board set so I'm not _totally_ out in
> the cold, but
> >it sure would be nice to use a drive that a) wasn't 150lbs
> (RA81) and b)
> >wasn't 3 feet long (RA92). Neither of which fit in the BA123(? nice
> >roll-around chassis, card cage is on the right side)
> enclosures that my 2
> >MicroVAXen use.
> >
> >g.
Received on Mon Feb 24 2003 - 10:55:00 GMT