🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1073@mixcom.COM> xxwwxx@mixcom.COM (Tim and Tim Company) writes:
>In article <DERAADT.91Jun23205834@fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca> deraadt@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Theo de Raadt) writes:
>
>I don't beleive there are any differences between the
>RQDX1 and the RQDX2, except for the module number, and
>the ROMS installed on-board.  If you put the two ROMS from
>and RQDX2 onto an RQDX1, it should function identically.

Well, sorta. From about 10' the boards look identical, but there
are hardware modifications made to the RQDX1 which makes it an RQDX2.
DEC made it such that the RQDX2 does _not_ have to be the last
board on the bus, increased the number of hard drives usable
on the board, and a couple other things which I can't remember
offhand. Minor things though.

>The RQXD3, however, is another story.  Here's the poop:
>
>The RQDX3 is a Dual card.  The RQDX1/2 are Quad cards.
>
>The RQDX3 uses a better interleave factor.
>(Either 1 or 2, compared to 3 with the RQDX1/2)

It's a 1:1. That's the only redeeming quality of any of the RQDX modules.

>Any of the controllers will support two hard drives, and
>1 RX50 drive.  (The RX50 counts as two drives.)

From what I understand (I don't have my handbook with me), 
the RQDX1 is limited to two hard drives, whereas the RQDX2 & 3
support four hard drives (with no floppy drives).

>BA11 installations of these MSCP controllers is not supported,
>unless you use some grossly over-priced external unit.

Or if you wire wrap your own distribution panel...
I have made up two of them so far.

>Some versions of some operating systems (obviously) do
>not support the RQDX3, so even if yours supports MSCP,
>you should check to see if it supports the RQDX3 *FIRST*.

Actually, it's not that obvious. Which os's that support MSCP
devices do not support the RQDX3? They must be some real oddballs...


Chris Kalisiak