Time: Tue Nov 05 08:02:33 1996
To: william barry <wbarry@loa.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: 9 GB single letter drive
Cc:
Bcc:
Dear Bill,
Thanks for your comments.
I will look forward to hearing
from you later then, okay?
(More at the end of this message ...)
I am standing by.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 09:45 AM 11/5/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 07:24 AM 11/5/96 -0700, you wrote:
>><snip>
>>>>>> I am looking for a computer
>>>>>> supplier who can assemble
>>>>>> a dual-Pentium DOS machine, 64MB,
>>>>>> with a 9GB hard disk (7200 rpm),
>>>>>> a single letter drive ("C:")
>>>>>> and the new OEM version
>>>>>> of Windows 95. Please respond
>>>>>> here. Thanks.
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you sure you want it all on one drive?
>>>>>Your sector size will be huge,
>>>>>and that means a giant waste-o-space!
>>>>
>>>>That's precisely the problem I am
>>>>trying to avoid. One solution is
>>>>to use DRVSPACE, but it will divide
>>>>a 9GB drive into 18 x 500MB partitions.
>>>>I want a single "C:" partition, but
>>>>I want the version of Windows 95
>>>>which has a fix for the FAT limit
>>>>of 65,535 entries. I believe it is
>>>>called Windows 950, but I am not
>>>>sure about this. I do not want to
>>>>use DRVSPACE; I want a single "C:"
>>>>partition, uncompressed, so that I
>>>>can start building C:\FREEDOMS and
>>>>load everything underneath it.
>>>>
>>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>>>
>>>>Enterprises 602-922-1639 - www.hollyent.com
>>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>>If anybody would like my 2 cents worth.
>>>>I think a new fast and wide SCSI-3
>>>>drive would be in order.
>>
>>That's hardware. The problem
>>with 16-bit FAT's is software,
>>logical, I believe. The SCSI-3's
>>are really beautiful though.
>>JES has RAID controllers with
>>triple porting: 3 x 15 devices
>>per controller, and some PCI
>>motherboards will accommodate
>>up to 4 of these controllers, so
>>get this:
>>
>>4 controllers x 3 ports x 15 devices
>>
>>= 180 disks @ 9 gigabytes!!!
>>
>>Have a little storage, maybe?
>>
>>
>> It is just I don't see anyway around huge sector
>>>size with a 9 gig un-partitoned.
>>
>>There is ... with the 32-bit FAT.
>>I am being told now that it is
>>version "B" of Windows 95 which
>>solves this problem. The cluster
>>sizes are optimal with the 32-bit FAT.
>>(Sector sizes don't change; cluster
>> sizes do change.)
>>
>>
>> What are you going to do for backup, 9
>>>gig's is alot to lose at once.
>>
>>Iomega JAZ drive (1GB/disk),
>>with incremental backups, e.g.:
>>
>> C:> xcopy freedoms d:\freedoms /m/e/v
>>
>>I have one on an Adaptec SCSI-II, and
>>it is incredibly fast. Norton Disk
>>Doctor (NDD) runs faster on it, than on my
>>Western Digital HD with DRVSPACE.
>>NDD just screams, believe it or not.
>>
>>
>> Are you planning on a dual RAID setup or
>>>just rely on a tape drive for backup.
>>
>>See above.
>>
>> I think you can do it with SCSI-3
>>>Drive and quite fast to at that.
>>
>>They are no doubt fast, but they
>>do not accommodate the large FAT,
>>without a modified operating system.
>>This is what I believe at present,
>>based on what I know (or think I know).
>>
>>
>> As for Dual Pentium, I am using a Tyan
>>>Tomcat 2 with Dual 133's running Windows N.T. 4.0 if you use Win 95 it
>>>won't recognize Dual Processors so one will be wasted.
>>
>>Nice ... very nice. You are running
>>more than 500 MIPs, then, yes? It must
>>be very fast; how terrific! Green with
>>envy over here. The 200Mhz Pentiums
>>are clocking over 400 MIPs, uni-processor,
>>so a dual-Pentium Pro is clocking 800 MIPs.
>>We are fast approaching the GIP range
>>(I can believe I said that :). The Micron
>>machines are a nice mail-order source.
>>
>>Aha, I am stuck with Windows 95 then,
>>is seems. Does the HPFS in NT solve
>>the 16-bit FAT problem too? I am trying
>>to avoid all new software for the NT
>>environment. I have a lot invested
>>in specific software that works for me;
>>this is not a minor consideration.
>>After much fiddling, I finally have two
>>machines running Windows 3.11, and everything
>>works (believe it or not).
>>
>>
>> You have to run Win
>>>N.T. 4.0 Workstation or Server or go to an OS/2 system. I know Windows 95
>>>won't cut it.
>>
>>So, I sacrifice the extra CPU
>>for the larger file store.
>>What I do is mostly I/O anyway,
>>so this is a small price to pay,
>>really. The extra RAM (64MB)
>>will also help with speed, when
>>several programs are running
>>at the same time.
>>
>>
>> but the Win N.T. 4.0 looks like Windows 95 on the face, an
>>>easey transition to N.T. and with dual Pentiums Speed, Speed,
>>>Speed,...........
>>
>>So, NT 4.0 with dual Pentiums
>>will allow a single letter drive,
>>without waste-o-space ...
>>does that summarize it nicely?
>>
>>
>>>Just my little bits of knowledge.............Later....Bill.........>
>>> IKE CLANTON "The Meanist Gunfighter To Escape The O.K.
>Corral."
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks very much for all your input.
>>
>>This is helping me a lot to isolate my
>>choices.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>===========================================================
>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>>===========================================================
>>
>>I will have to talk to a close friend who is a Microsoft Certified N.T.
>Tech. I think he can answer the cluster size issue with a 9 gig
>un-partitioned drive.
Way cool. I am in no hurry.
I want it to be right.
I know what I want here:
C:\FREEDOMS
growing and growing, with the
fewest possible restraints.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
> I will call him tonight and get back to you.
I will appreciate that very much.
I
>personally use several 2 and 1 gig SCSI -3 drives myself and a DAT backup
>drive for safety.
SCSI-3 huh? Which one?
> It's only a 2 gig DAT but backup speed is pretty good.
I love the JAZ drives, because
they are DOS letter drives with
random file access. Very neat.
I
>almost went for the faster Pentiums but the price difference was awefull.
You made the right choice,
it seems.
>The 133's seemed the best choice or the most bang for the
>buck<G>...................Later........Bill........
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail