SUMMARY: WREN V,VI,VII and SunOS 4.1.2

From: tonyr@tekadg.adg.tek.com
Date: Sun Feb 09 1992 - 05:51:16 CST


Thanks people,

    Once again you have performed your Kirkian duty and saved the
universe ( or was it humanity ) from destruction. As usual most of
the replies arrived before my post did. As usual I am sorry for taking
so long to reply. But the news is GOOD.

My original posting:

> Sun Managers,
> I am about to upgrade my 4/370 (4.0.3) to a 670MP(4.1.2). I have
> Wren V(702), VI(766), and VII(12G) SCSI drives on this system that Sun has
> recently (read 'long after the order was placed and arrived') informed
> me 'are not supported' and 'may not work' under 4.1.2. I notice that
> the 4.1.2 format.dat entries for these drives are commented out. Folk
> tales and experience lead me to believe that many drives that Sun 'does
> not support' have worked under previous OS versions. Does anyone have
> any real experience with these drives and 4.1.2, or know what the real
> deal is here? These drives represent about 3Gb of storage to me, and I
> can replace them if I have to, but it's time and money, y'know.
>
> Tony Rick
> Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, OR
> voice:(503) 627-2942
> email: tonyr@tekadg.adg.tek.com

The replies were of three main varieties:
    
     1. Let me know what you find out.
     2. The drives work fine under 4.1.1, and should work under 4.1.2.
     3. We have a 6X0MP system and the WREN{V,VI,VII,VIII} drives work
         fine.

About 30% of the replies were of variety 3! More than statistically
adequate, my friends. There were several comments about the true
meaning of 'not supported' ranging from straight forward to highly
subjective. ( I think the quote was "pissing down your back and telling
you it's raining".) There were also several comments about the
inadequacy of the format.dat entries provided by Sun for these drives.
( of course they are 'not supported', so why should we believe those
entries anyway ?) And there were a couple of reminders about recreating
filesystems ( re-newfsing, is that a real word?) because I'm going from
4.0.3 to 4.1.x. TFM says this is not required, but the comments were
that I would be losing some performance if I did not.

I have not done the upgrade yet, due to VME issues, but
these are almost resolved. I will be doing the upgrade in about two
weeks. I'll be happy to respond to anyone who would like to hear my
continuing upgrade saga.

Thanks to All: ( hope I didn't miss anyone )

Tom Conroy <trc@NSD.3Com.COM>
doug@perry.berkeley.edu (Doug Neuhauser)
reg@aquarius.unm.edu (Reg Clemens)
hargen@sybus.COM (Bill Hargen)
Leon M. Clancy <lmclan@icase.edu>
zeke@mpl.UCSD.EDU (Rob Scott)
rmk@snowhit.att.COM
dbrillha@dave.mis.semi.harris.COM (Dave Brillhart)
kfoster@sptekwv14.WV.TEK.COM (Ken Foster)
deltam!dm!mark@uunet.UU.NET (mark galbraith)
Joel Malman <malman@BBN.COM>
shj@ultra.COM (Steve Jay {Ultra Unix SW Mgr})
hbryant@braves.East.Sun.COM (Henry Bryant - FSE)
Aydin Edguer <edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu>
jgarb@erim.org (Joe Garbarino)
Steve Hanson <hanson@pogo.fnal.gov>
Kevin Cosgrove <kevinc@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM>

Tony Rick
Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, OR
voice:(503) 627-2942
email: tonyr@tekadg.adg.tek.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:06:35 CDT