Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!lll-tis!lll-lcc!pyramid!batcomputer!garry From: garry@batcomputer.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: Re: Backups and disks Message-ID: <1650@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Date: Wed, 8-Jul-87 23:52:59 EDT Article-I.D.: batcompu.1650 Posted: Wed Jul 8 23:52:59 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jul-87 17:58:28 EDT Reply-To: garry@oak.cadif.cornell.edu Organization: Cornell Engineering && Flying Moose Graphics Lines: 26 In a recent article RMALOUF@SBCCMAIL.BITNET (Rob Malouf) wrote: >... However, I noticed in the documentation that an RA81 >disk drive can be driven by two UDA50 controllers. If this is really true, >then I could connect the 11/730's RA81 to controllers in both machines. >This kind of dual-porting would create a shared disk drive and a "poor-man's" >VAXcluster! All my instincts say that it could never work... A shared disk drive does not a Vaxcluster make. The only reason people dual-port disks on VMS, I think, is so that they can be manually switched (without having to move cables) over to machine B if machine A goes down. More seriously, Dec says you can't plug an RA81 into a microVax (at least our uVax's) at all - seems Dec screwed up such that the necessary cabling would break FCC rules. I assume that that means there would be "too much" RF leaking out of the cabinet. As a result of this, we are in the process of throwing away our RA81's and - after years of loyalty - buying non-Dec disk drives. garry wiegand (garry@oak.cadif.cornell.edu - ARPA) (garry@crnlthry - BITNET) PS - if you *do* have a dual-ported disk it might be a fun exercise to persuade VMS that it's "actually" an Ethernet... no technical reason why it couldn't be done. Performance from the "remote" node would be terrible though.