Xenix vs. Unix?
sl at van-bc.UUCP
Wed Sep 6 14:54:59 AEST 1989
In article <1989Sep5.213627.13558 at ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <26 at fleet.UUCP> mel at .UUCP () writes:
>>SCO Xenix isn't all that great at tape drive support either. Ever since I
>>switched to 2.3.1 Xenix it takes TWO attempts at starting the tape drive.
>>(I'm using an Archive 150 meg/QIC02 internal on my HP Vectra 386/RS20)
>>(I also tried an Emerald controller as well as the original Archive unit)
>We don't seen anything like this. We have both 60 and 150 MB archive drives
>in the field, with both long and short controller boards. No problems
>Karl Denninger (karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
I'll second Karl on this one. I've had less problems with SCO tape support
in 286 and 386 systems than in competing 386 systems.
I've used both an Archive and Everex controller just by doing mkdev tape and
using the defaults.
It's fairly fast and seems reliable.
If you are having problems like you describe you should probably try a
different set of hardware. I.e. does the problem disappear if you replace
the controller or drive? Does it disappear if you install the controller and
drive on a different 386 system? Different type of 386 system?
It's most likely that you have a either a bad tape system or an interaction
with it and the 386 you are using.
Stuart.Lynne at wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
More information about the Comp.unix.i386