[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
UX400S tape problems
Date: Tue, 15 May 90 10:41 EDT
From: Richard Munoz <MUNOZ@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tue, 15 May 90 09:19 CDT
From: Donald H. Mitchell <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 90 09:35 EDT
From: MUNOZ@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM (Richard Munoz)
Date: Mon, 14 May 90 16:47 CDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Donald H. Mitchell)
This message intended as a warning to potential users of the UX400S.
The warning is not valid; see below.
The UX400S cannot backup its lmfs partition to a tape drive on
another Sun. The UX400S cannot read carry tapes from another Sun. I don't
know if it can perform these operations if the tape drive is on the local Sun
(the box that the UX is embedded in).
Symbolics has a patch for both 7.4.3 and 8.0 that fixes problems with
writing LMFS backup tapes on a UX400S system. Please contact Symbolics
Software Support to find out how to get this patch. At this time all
Symbolics tape formats (FEP-tape, LMFS backup (with the patch), Carry
tape, and Statice Backup) are known to work in Genera 8.0 on a UX400S.
If you run into a problem with any tape format, please send the
technical details to Symbolics Software support so they can help you
resolve the problem.
The UX400S CAN, however, write carry tapes, read and write distribution tapes,
and read (?) and write FEP tapes using a tape drive on another Sun.
Your comments are odd because I've been working with Houman and Trev on this
problem for almost a week and they confess to knowing that there was a problem
and having no solutions. Maybe you ought to talk with them and ensure I get
the corrections if they indeed exist.
I would have been more precise in saying "your warning has just now
become invalid." The patch just got tested here ("hot off the presses")
at Symbolics and at a customer site as well. Houman and Trev now have
the information on the patch.
The continuing saga (I hope I'm not boring anyone): the patches don't work,
and, from trev's note when he sent the second patch, I gather that he wasn't
at all certain that they would. Why is Symbolics causing its dirty laundry to
get so much air? Wouldn't you have been better off confirming and advertising
the correction before claiming faultlessness? Let's stop this, "yes it does"
"no it doesn't" childishness and agree to network silence until we both agree
that the patches work.