From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Jan 30 17:53:56 1995
Received: from UTCVM.UTC.EDU (UTCVM.UTC.EDU [192.239.44.5]) by southern.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA03555 for <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:53:53 -0500
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from UTCVM.UTC.EDU by UTCVM.UTC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 9692; Mon, 30 Jan 95 17:53:31 EST
Received: from UTCVM.UTC.EDU (NJE origin MAILER@UTCVM) by UTCVM.UTC.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0591; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:51:20 -0500
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:51:20 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
From: RFC822 mailer (LMail release 1.2a/1.8a) <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Undelivered mail
To: [log in to unmask]
cc: [log in to unmask]
X-Report-Type: Nondelivery; boundary="> Error description:"
Status: OR
An error was detected while processing the enclosed message. A list of
the affected recipients follows. This list is in a special format that
allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect
addresses; you can safely ignore the numeric codes.
--> Error description:
Error-For: [log in to unmask]
Alias: [log in to unmask]
Error-Code: 3
Error-Text: No such local user.
Error-End: One error reported.
------------------------- Rejected message (52 lines) -------------------------
Received: from southern.edu by UTCVM.UTC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
Mon, 30 Jan 95 17:51:10 EST
Received: from localhost (jbeckett@localhost) by southern.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id R
AA03275; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:49:02 -0500
From: John Beckett <[log in to unmask]>
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Serious problems with HP 1.3 Gig DAT drives.
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:49:01 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> from "Christopher L. Davis" at
Jan 30, 95 08:20:26 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2195
Christopher L. Davis Systems and Network Administrator wrote:
> I crossposted this to the general hardware group, but I am specifically
> have trouble with MPE/iX machines.
>
> Hello. Has anyone else had trouble with HP 1.3 Gigabyte disks delivered
> with their PA-RISC systems? I have a 937 and 947 and both have
> had 3 different tape drives in 3 years. I find this unacceptable.
> Is my dis-satisfaction unwarranted?
>
> I also believe that the drives are damaging my tapes. I currently
> perform a full dump every night, and each tape is used once a month.
> Each tape has been used about 30 times. I realize this is the low
> end of expected life, but I really expected them to last quite a bit
> longer. I have some tapes stored in the same place, that are still
> going strong, and have been used the same number of times.
We had several months (unfortunately, including a major duplication job
for Robelle) during which our tape drive was a major problem. We had had
a problem just previous to the Robelle job. The drive HP swapped in
turned out to have a broken spring in the mechanism, which seriously
degraded tape interchangeability. Now we have about a month of backups
which are totally unreadable, despite the fact that they verified OK at
the time. HP finally got us straightened out, but only after a lot of
fingerpointing and dodging.
IMHO The main problem is that HP does not have an adequate method of
_testing_ these drives in the field. The good old 7970E had a great
reputation, which it earned not by being a particularly good drive, but by
having an excellent alignment system available to CE's. I know, I used to
align our drives--and we rarely had a bad tape written for Robelle after a
good alignment. The "drop in the swap drive and vanish" methodology is
more suitable for, eh, other technologies.
--
/\--. John A. Beckett Sysop: 56 k bps netline
/ \ ) Southern College of SDA 19 14.4k modems
/----\---. (615) 238-2701 voice untold LAN connections
\ / \ \ 238-2431 FAX shell, slip, email,
`-' `--' [log in to unmask] WWW, gopher, ftp
|
