I'm presuming you meant a 1 TB disk? I'm not sure a 1 GB disk is
considered 'huge' anymore (even in 1994 when I got my DEC 3000/600
with 2x1GB drives I thought they were a bit pokey.)



Mark.

In article
,
urbancamo writes:

> I'm presuming you meant a 1 TB disk?

Yes, of course!

> I'm not sure a 1 GB disk is
> considered 'huge' anymore (even in 1994 when I got my DEC 3000/600
> with 2x1GB drives I thought they were a bit pokey.)

Indeed.

What about one that hangs off the network - doesn't VMS support samba
shares?

On Sep 5, 1:10 pm, urbancamo wrote:
> What about one that hangs off the network - doesn't VMS support samba
> shares?

Don't know about VMS and SAMBA, but the low-end unbranded NAS box I
bought a while back has basically no security on its SAMBA shares (one
username/password gets access to everything in the box), which might
not fit well in any environment where folks care about security, e.g.
a typical VMS environment. The innards of many low-end NAS boxes may
well be similar, whether they come with a well-known ("trusted"?) name
or not.

helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:

>I recently saw an ad for a 1-GB RAID-1 external USB disk for EUR 179.
>Is there any VMS machine (presumably Itaniuum) one could connect this
>to? What are the largest officially supported SCSI-1, SCSI-2 and SCSI-3
>disks for VMS? What are the largest which will work?

AFAIK, VMS should be fine with any disk up to 1TB, for which the driver
can handle all possible blocks. This would exclude IDE drives over 137G
unless work has been done in that area recently. Due to the way SCSI
drives work, ones up to 1TB should just work. This doesn't mean
supported.

VMS might have issues for drives with more than 2147483647 blocks, which
works out to be 1.099 TB because the block number, if it's ever treated as
a signed longword, could go negative. I know shadowing would have problems
with that unless work has been done to address that recently. This
2147483647 figure may be hard-coded as a limit in MOUNT or something.

moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:
>
>>I recently saw an ad for a 1-GB RAID-1 external USB disk for EUR 179.
>>Is there any VMS machine (presumably Itaniuum) one could connect this
>>to? What are the largest officially supported SCSI-1, SCSI-2 and SCSI-3
>>disks for VMS? What are the largest which will work?
>
> AFAIK, VMS should be fine with any disk up to 1TB, for which the driver
> can handle all possible blocks. This would exclude IDE drives over 137G
> unless work has been done in that area recently. Due to the way SCSI
> drives work, ones up to 1TB should just work. This doesn't mean
> supported.

The sign-bit restriction should be removed for (what will likely be called)
V8.4, out in late 2009.

This will theoretically allow volumes up to 2TB in size.

--

Rob Brooks MSL -- Nashua brooks!cuebid.zko.hp.com

In article ,
brooks@cuebid.ovms.usa.hp.nospam (Rob Brooks) wrote:

> This will theoretically allow volumes up to 2TB in size.

I'd be surprised if they stop there. Such disks may well be out by then.

--
Don't bother with piddly crap like "gun control".
Life is 100% fatal. Ban it.

Howard S Shubs writes:
> In article ,
> brooks@cuebid.ovms.usa.hp.nospam (Rob Brooks) wrote:
>
>> This will theoretically allow volumes up to 2TB in size.
>
> I'd be surprised if they stop there. Such disks may well be out by then.

The ~2TB limit is not particularly arbitrary -- that's the max allowed within
the contraints of an unsigned 32-bit longword.

I'm pretty sure that there are no plans to develop a new file
system whose volumes can exceed 2TB.

--

Rob Brooks MSL -- Marlborough brooks!cuebid.ovms.usa.hp.com

On Sep 8, 11:46*am, bro...@cuebid.ovms.usa.hp.nospam (Rob Brooks)
wrote:
> Howard S Shubs writes:
>
> > In article ,
> > *bro...@cuebid.ovms.usa.hp.nospam (Rob Brooks) wrote:
>
> >> This will theoretically allow volumes up to 2TB in size.
>
> > I'd be surprised if they stop there. *Such disks may well be out by then.
>
> The ~2TB limit is not particularly arbitrary -- that's the max allowed within
> the contraints of an unsigned 32-bit longword.
>
> I'm pretty sure that there are no plans to develop a new file
> system whose volumes can exceed 2TB.
>
> --
>
> Rob Brooks * *MSL -- Marlborough * * * * * * * *brooks!cuebid.ovms.usa.hp.com

We have run 300GB disks straight off a SCSI controller on Alpha and
Itanium systems
with no problem. If you want one let me know as we sell them all the
time.

Len Whitwer

-Len Whitwer
Puget Sound Data Systems, Inc.
19501 144th Ave. NE Suite D-100
Woodinville, WA 98072
e-mail mailto:len@psds.com
Internet: http://www.psds.com
Toll Free: (866)857-0710
Tel: (425) 488-0710
Fax: (425) 488-6414

Len Whitwer wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 11:46 am, bro...@cuebid.ovms.usa.hp.nospam (Rob Brooks)
> wrote:
> > Howard S Shubs writes:
> >
> > > In article ,
> > > bro...@cuebid.ovms.usa.hp.nospam (Rob Brooks) wrote:
> >
> > >> This will theoretically allow volumes up to 2TB in size.
> >
> > > I'd be surprised if they stop there. Such disks may well be out by then.
> >
> > The ~2TB limit is not particularly arbitrary -- that's the max allowed within
> > the contraints of an unsigned 32-bit longword.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that there are no plans to develop a new file
> > system whose volumes can exceed 2TB.

Well, I've no personal aversion to using mirrorsets or shadowsets as
volumeset members, as long as I don't have to support Oracle on such
storage. Oracle side-steps too much of both RMS and ODS to allow that,
and it's too primitive stone-age stuff for such things. Then again, 450
tablespaces with ten or twenty tablespace files each where each file
fills a 2TB volume sure allows for a whopper of database, even without
volumeset support! Petabyte DBs are still possible - advisable being
another question entirely, of course.

> We have run 300GB disks straight off a SCSI controller on Alpha and
> Itanium systems
> with no problem. If you want one let me know as we sell them all the
> time.

Sure! ...as long as it's single-ended narrow SCSI-II with a 50-pin
connector, will run in a SBB canister without overheating or overloading
a 180 watt power supply and not cost more than a day's (gross) pay...

D.J.D.