11 Feb
2007
11 Feb
'07
7:18 a.m.
At 09:58 PM 2/10/2007, you wrote:
On 2/11/07, Grant Stockly <grant at stockly.com>
wrote:
Right... the SCSI chip is cheap enough (and supported under Minix,
probably, since there were several 3rd party Amiga controllers with
the 5380), but the real expense is the breadboard card.
Really? I guess I don't know where to get those. I've got one and I just
keep reusing it. They'd be $20 plus shipping if were to make some. Any
interest?
Of course, if I made a SCSI card they would be $10 without parts. (not
full size S-100) ; ) SCSI is kind of dead, but it would be a fun card to
make...
Grant
Did anyone make S-100 SCSI? One could roll ones
own, but that's a
different level of expense.
The 5380, 3 resistor packs, a '138, couple latches, and about 10 square
inches of an S-100 breadboard card. 
11 Feb
11 Feb
5:14 p.m.
On Feb 11, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Grant Stockly wrote:
Of course, if I made a SCSI card they would be $10
without parts.
(not full size S-100) ; ) SCSI is kind of dead, but it would be a
fun card to make...
[looks around]
Huh? When did that happen, exactly?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
12 Feb
12 Feb
6:46 a.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 11, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Grant Stockly wrote:
Really. How many different kind of machines are coming *brand new* with
SCSI *right now*?
Peace... Sridhar
Of course, if I made a SCSI card they would be
$10 without parts.
(not full size S-100) ; ) SCSI is kind of dead, but it would be a
fun card to make...
[looks around]
Huh? When did that happen, exactly? 
8:39 a.m.
SCSI is kind of dead, but [...]
[looks around]
Huh? When did that happen, exactly?
9:15 a.m.
At 11:39 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:
Really. How many different kind of machines
are coming *brand new*
with SCSI *right now*?
What's that got to do with its being dead (or not)? Or is this some
redefinition of "dead" that amounts to "not present on lots of
different kinds of machines rolling off production lines now"?
By "kind of dead" I meant cheap workstation class hard drives. "Kind of
sick" could be a cold and sick could be AIDS or cancer? ; )
It would make a lot more sense to build an IDE card for the Altair than a
SCSI one IMO.
Grant
SCSI is kind
of dead, but [...]
[looks around]
Huh? When did that happen, exactly?
6:07 p.m.
New subject: Small hard drives, was Re: Tower of Nerd
On Feb 12, 2007, at 4:15 AM, Grant Stockly wrote:
By "kind of dead" I meant cheap workstation
class hard drives.
"Cheap" + "workstation class" == oxymoron, in my book. ;)
It would make a lot more sense to build an IDE card
for the Altair
than a SCSI one IMO.
Speaking of which...does it make sense to start preserving
(hoarding) older, low-capacity hard drives, be they IDE or SCSI, for
smaller machines? They seem to be drying up fast.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
6:42 p.m.
New subject: Small hard drives, was Re: Tower of Nerd
Speaking of which...does it make sense to start
preserving
(hoarding) older, low-capacity hard drives, be they IDE or SCSI, for
smaller machines? They seem to be drying up fast.
-Dave
YES!!!!
Several years ago (around '98/99), the most "valuable" Hard drive in my
collection was a 20MB SCSI HD, as it allowed me to transfer some software
onto my PDP-11. It was the *ONLY* SCSI HD in my collection that was smaller
than 100MB (IIRC, I needed 30MB or smaller).
For the past several years I've been collecting 2GB Seagate Barracuda Narrow
SCSI drives when I can find them, as well as other small Narrow SCSI drives.
As I hope to be able to have enough to outlast my PDP-11's, Amiga's, and
Atari TT030.
For my VAXstations, I've got 40+ StorageWorks drives, as well as plenty of
StorageWorks shelves and fans.
I'm also collecting large capacity SCSI drives for my Alpha's, Sun's, and
SGI O2's.
I probably have enough EIDE drives for my PC's and PowerMac G4. I've quite
honestly not given this as much thought as I maybe should.
I even have a few RD52's, 2 RD54's, and a couple ESDI drives. I've even
saved the dead RD53's I have, but haven't had a chance to try to revive
them.
Also take a look at spare powersupplies, fans, and any strange CD/DVD-ROM
requirements (such as 512-byte block SCSI). If you use external disk
enclosures, it would be a good idea to have spares of them as well. Spare
floppy drives are also a good idea.
Yes, I've given this some thought over the past 10 years, and have been
stock piling all of that time. I just hope I don't have anything that is
the equivalent of the DEC RD53 drives in my spares collection!
My big concern in the coming years is likely to be suitable monitors for
various systems.
Zane
6:46 p.m.
New subject: Small hard drives, was Re: Tower of Nerd
Speaking of which...does it make sense to start
preserving (hoarding)
older, low-capacity hard drives, be they IDE or SCSI, for smaller
machines? They seem to be drying up fast.
It does to me - and I have been. For some time now. :-)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
8:49 p.m.
New subject: Small hard drives, was Re: Tower of Nerd
der Mouse wrote:
Same here, although I tend to concentrate on ST506/412 drives because there's
no (economical) way to emulate them with something else. Small-capacity IDE
and SCSI units are still easy enough to find [1] in my experience, and
worst-case both interfaces are documented well enough that a unit could be
emulated.
[1] Apart from SCSI drives that support 256 byte sectors, or IDE drives that
work natively with 8-bit transfers.
Speaking of
which...does it make sense to start preserving (hoarding)
older, low-capacity hard drives, be they IDE or SCSI, for smaller
machines? They seem to be drying up fast.
It does to me - and I have been. For some time now. :-)
13 Feb
13 Feb
11:49 p.m.
New subject: Small hard drives, was Re: Tower of Nerd
On Feb 12, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
Same here, although I tend to concentrate on ST506/412 drives
because there's no (economical) way to emulate them with something
else. Small-capacity IDE and SCSI units are still easy enough to
find [1] in my experience, and worst-case both interfaces are
documented well enough that a unit could be emulated.
[1] Apart from SCSI drives that support 256 byte sectors, or IDE
drives that work natively with 8-bit transfers.
I believe the spec for the CompactFlash interface requires 8-bit
mode to exist.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Speaking of which...does it make sense to start
preserving
(hoarding)
older, low-capacity hard drives, be they IDE or SCSI, for smaller
machines? They seem to be drying up fast.
It does to me - and I have been. For
some time now. :-) 
14 Feb
14 Feb
4:20 a.m.
New subject: Small hard drives, was Re: Tower of Nerd
Dave McGuire wrote:
I am using a 340MB CompactFlash II IBM microdrive as my IBM PC/XT's 2nd
hard drive. So yes, it works.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
[1] Apart from SCSI drives that support 256 byte sectors, or IDE
drives that work natively with 8-bit transfers.
I believe the spec for the CompactFlash interface requires 8-bit mode
to exist.
12 Feb
12 Feb
9:46 a.m.
der Mouse wrote:
Really. How many different kind of machines
are coming *brand new*
with SCSI *right now*?
What's that got to do with its being dead (or not)? Or is this some
redefinition of "dead" that amounts to "not present on lots of
different kinds of machines rolling off production lines now"?
I wasn't being facetious. I was agreeing with Dave.
There are, infact at least ten different *architectures* **off the top
of my head** that are still coming with SCSI as their default storage.
Peace... Sridhar
SCSI is kind
of dead, but [...]
[looks around]
Huh? When did that happen, exactly?
4:13 p.m.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Dave McGuire wrote:
Pretty much anything that isn't a desktop PC with a year or so of design life,
I would have thought. It's still perfectly alive and well for people who care
about quality.
On Feb 11, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Grant Stockly
wrote:
Really. How many different kind of machines are coming *brand new* with
SCSI *right now*? Of course, if I made a SCSI card they would be
$10 without parts.
(not full size S-100) ; ) SCSI is kind of dead, but it would be a
fun card to make...
[looks around]
Huh? When did that happen, exactly?
5:20 p.m.
At 10:13 AM -0600 2/12/07, Jules Richardson wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
While rack mount servers still use SCSI, that's about it, and a bunch
of our latest in our computer room have come with 2.5" SAS drives
(Serial Attached SCSI). All the new Sun Workstations look to be
using SATA, not sure about the IBM or HP's. My current Sun is an
aging SunBlade 1000, and it uses fibre drives.
I think both EIDE, and SCSI are slowly on their way out. Though
hopefully SCSI will stick around for a while longer.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
Really. How many different kind of machines are
coming *brand new*
with SCSI *right now*?
Pretty much anything that isn't a desktop PC with a year or so of
design life, I would have thought. It's still perfectly alive and
well for people who care about quality.
6:22 p.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, Re: Tower of Nerd
On Feb 12, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
While rack mount servers still use SCSI, that's about it, and a
bunch of our latest in our computer room have come with 2.5" SAS
drives (Serial Attached SCSI). All the new Sun Workstations look
to be using SATA, not sure about the IBM or HP's. My current Sun
is an aging SunBlade 1000, and it uses fibre drives.
I think both EIDE, and SCSI are slowly on their way out. Though
hopefully SCSI will stick around for a while longer.
Indeed, perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I believe we could
easily consider both SAS and Fibre Channel to be SCSI. They are both
different low-level transport mechanisms for SCSI. The only possible
nit here is that Fibre Channel can also be used as the transport
mechanism for other high-level protocols like IP.
To say "SAS isn't SCSI" or "FC isn't SCSI", it wouldn't
be taking
things too much further to say "Differential SCSI isn't SCSI".
Most of the important benefits of SCSI are in the command set, not
the type of connectors and voltage levels in use.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Really. How many different kind of machines are
coming *brand
new* with SCSI *right now*?
Pretty much anything that isn't a desktop PC with a year or so of
design life, I would have thought. It's still perfectly alive and
well for people who care about quality.
6:46 p.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, Re: Tower of Nerd
Indeed, perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but
I believe we could
easily consider both SAS and Fibre Channel to be SCSI. They are both
different low-level transport mechanisms for SCSI. The only possible
nit here is that Fibre Channel can also be used as the transport
mechanism for other high-level protocols like IP.
To say "SAS isn't SCSI" or "FC isn't SCSI", it
wouldn't be taking
things too much further to say "Differential SCSI isn't SCSI".
Most of the important benefits of SCSI are in the command set, not
the type of connectors and voltage levels in use.
-Dave
In the case of keeping old hardware running there is a serious difference
between SCSI, SAS, FC, HVD-SCSI, and U160/U320-SCSI. There is a lesser
difference between Narrow SCSI, Wide SCSI, UW-SCSI, and U2W-SCSI.
Zane
6:56 p.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, Re: Tower of Nerd
On Feb 12, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Well that's true, of course. I was speaking in the context of
someone's idiotic proclamation that "SCSI is dead".
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Indeed,
perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I believe we could
easily consider both SAS and Fibre Channel to be SCSI. They are both
different low-level transport mechanisms for SCSI. The only possible
nit here is that Fibre Channel can also be used as the transport
mechanism for other high-level protocols like IP.
To say "SAS isn't SCSI" or "FC isn't SCSI", it
wouldn't be taking
things too much further to say "Differential SCSI isn't SCSI".
Most of the important benefits of SCSI are in the command set, not
the type of connectors and voltage levels in use.
In the case of keeping old hardware running there is a serious
difference
between SCSI, SAS, FC, HVD-SCSI, and U160/U320-SCSI. There is a
lesser
difference between Narrow SCSI, Wide SCSI, UW-SCSI, and U2W-SCSI.
7:20 p.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, Re: Tower of Nerd
Well that's true, of course. I was speaking in
the context of
someone's idiotic proclamation that "SCSI is dead".
-Dave
Maybe I should have said traditional SCSI :^) Sorry, but from a user
standpoint, SAS and FC are different beast (at least I don't think I can
plug a SAS drive into a standard UW-SCSI controller).
Zane
7:27 p.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, Re: Tower of Nerd
On Feb 12, 2007, at 2:20 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
That's true of course...Part of the reason for my piping up on
this subject is that this is a very gray area. One can't plug an SAS
drive into a UW-SCSI controller, but one can't plug an HVD drive into
a UW-SCSI controller either.
Well, at least not without filling the machine room with smoke. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Well
that's true, of course. I was speaking in the context of
someone's idiotic proclamation that "SCSI is dead".
Maybe I should have said traditional SCSI :^) Sorry, but from a user
standpoint, SAS and FC are different beast (at least I don't think
I can
plug a SAS drive into a standard UW-SCSI controller). 
7:30 p.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, Re: Tower of Nerd
On 2/12/07 2:20 PM, "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
Maybe I should have said traditional SCSI :^) Sorry, but from a user
standpoint, SAS and FC are different beast (at least I don't think I can
plug a SAS drive into a standard UW-SCSI controller).
I think that anyone who has to support end-users will tell you that you
*can* plug anything into anything. You might have to use a big screw driver
and a hammer, and it probably won't work afterwards, but it can be done.
--
Christopher L McNabb Tel: 540 231 7554
Senior Systems Engineer Email: cmcnabb at vt.edu
Virginia Tech ICBM: 37.205622N 80.414595W
ARS: N2UX Grid Square: EM97SD
7:39 p.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, Re: Tower of Nerd
At 09:56 AM 2/12/2007, you wrote:
On Feb 12, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Well that's true, of course. I was speaking in the context of
someone's idiotic proclamation that "SCSI is dead".
It was an opinion ("kind of"), and it was when refering to an 5390. I
suppose since there are SCSI converters from SATA, then it can't die until
SATA dies.
Grant
Indeed, perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I believe we could
easily consider both SAS and Fibre Channel to be SCSI. They are both
different low-level transport mechanisms for SCSI. The only possible
nit here is that Fibre Channel can also be used as the transport
mechanism for other high-level protocols like IP.
To say "SAS isn't SCSI" or "FC isn't SCSI", it
wouldn't be taking
things too much further to say "Differential SCSI isn't SCSI".
Most of the important benefits of SCSI are in the command set, not
the type of connectors and voltage levels in use.
In the case of keeping old hardware running there is a serious
difference
between SCSI, SAS, FC, HVD-SCSI, and U160/U320-SCSI. There is a
lesser
difference between Narrow SCSI, Wide SCSI, UW-SCSI, and U2W-SCSI. 
7:47 p.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, converters
It was an opinion ("kind of"), and it was when refering to an 5390. I
suppose since there are SCSI converters from SATA, then it can't die until
SATA dies.
Grant
I have been using USB to SCSI converters for my SCSI scanners and photo printer. Another
way to keep SCSI alive.
Bob
6:46 p.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, Re: Tower of Nerd
To say "SAS isn't SCSI" or "FC
isn't SCSI", it wouldn't be taking
things too much further to say "Differential SCSI isn't SCSI".
HVD, yes, I'd agree.
Most of the important benefits of SCSI are in the
command set, not
the type of connectors and voltage levels in use.
Maybe important to you. To me, the most important single benefit of
SCSI is compatability: I plug it in and it Just Works, all the way from
the disk and machines dating from when 120MB was big to stuff bought
new today. (Yes, mixing eras usually forces you to the lowest
performance of any involved device, but the most I've ever needed to
make it work is a passive adapter. Except for HVD, which is why I view
HVD as a bit of a pariah.)
*That* is why *I* like SCSI - and why I don't consider SAS and FC to be
"real" SCSI (and, to a large extent, HVD).
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
13 Feb
13 Feb
7:54 a.m.
New subject: What is SCSI really, Re: Tower of Nerd
On Feb 12, 2007, at 1:46 PM, der Mouse wrote:
Well yes, I have to agree...perhaps "important" wasn't the word I
was looking for. I suppose I meant "architecturally significant".
To say
"SAS isn't SCSI" or "FC isn't SCSI", it wouldn't be
taking
things too much further to say "Differential SCSI isn't SCSI".
HVD, yes, I'd agree.
Most of the important benefits of SCSI are in the
command set, not
the type of connectors and voltage levels in use.
Maybe important to you. To me, the most important single benefit of
SCSI is compatability: I plug it in and it Just Works, all the way
from
the disk and machines dating from when 120MB was big to stuff bought
new today. (Yes, mixing eras usually forces you to the lowest
performance of any involved device, but the most I've ever needed to
make it work is a passive adapter. Except for HVD, which is why I
view
HVD as a bit of a pariah.)
*That* is why *I* like SCSI - and why I don't consider SAS and FC
to be
"real" SCSI (and, to a large extent, HVD).
I'm right with you there. I was just trying to point out that
"SCSI" means more than just "a 50/68/80-pin hard drive connector".
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
4:24 a.m.
Sridhar Ayengar schrieb:
Dave McGuire wrote:
It is common in 19" server racks. Rather, it is pretty uncommon NOT to
find SCSI in servers; at least it is a very good indicator that a
machine is likely el-cheapo consumer crap (ROHS etc leading to
selfdestruction magically after end of warranty to keep the market
running) if there is not at least a SCSI option
Regards
Holger
On Feb 11, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Grant Stockly
wrote:
Really. How many different kind of machines are coming *brand new*
with SCSI *right now*?
Peace... Sridhar
Of course, if I made a SCSI card they would be
$10 without parts.
(not full size S-100) ; ) SCSI is kind of dead, but it would be a
fun card to make...
[looks around]
Huh? When did that happen, exactly?
6528
days inactive
6531
days old
24 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
bobalan＠sbcglobal.net -
cmcnabb＠vt.edu -
grant＠stockly.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
holger.veit＠iais.fraunhofer.de -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org