Re: 3350 failures

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/21/2007 at 02:02 PM, William Donzelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Will a 3880 with proper microcode control 3350s? Yes, if it's the right model. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see

Re: 3350 failures

plenum connected to 2 different HDA's but I could be > wrong on this point. Lots of long weekends with the media folks deciding > how to play musical chairs with strings of DASD. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#58 3350 failures http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#60 335

Re: 3350 failures

ne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 05/21/2007 11:31 PM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List To IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU cc Subject Re: 3350 failures The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit

Re: 3350 failures

Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List To IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU cc Subject Re: 3350 failures [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >IBM 3880 - 1 or 2 (IBM DASD and Control Units Facts Folder G520-3075-2) > >William Donzelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discuss

Re: 3350 failures

re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#58 3350 failures silicon valley area had at least three fairly large vm370 customer datacenters with good sized disk farms ... there was SLAC (lots of collection from the accelerator) and both Tymshare and internal HONE operation ... both extensive o

Re: 3350 failures

>(I worked on a *lot* of 3330s. We had something close to half an acre of them >in the data center.) I started with 3330's. And, I remember when STK (STC) showed us their first ICEBERG, and the size of the device was that of a standard conference table, weighed less and had the capacity of an

Re: 3350 failures

Ted MacNEIL wrote: IIRC, there was also a "head of string" 3350 that would act as a controller. No, the HOS (A-unit) was required to connect to the 3880. B-units were the next in line. I think the last was a C-unit, but that might have been on for 3330's. (That last part is an entry in my dim

Re: 3350 failures

>IIRC, there was also a "head of string" 3350 that would act as a controller. No, the HOS (A-unit) was required to connect to the 3880. B-units were the next in line. I think the last was a C-unit, but that might have been on for 3330's. (That last part is an entry in my dimmer parts of my own m

Re: 3350 failures

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > IBM 3880 - 1 or 2 (IBM DASD and Control Units Facts Folder G520-3075-2) old email with reference to finding bug in the 3350 support in 3880 controller (and pos

Re: 3350 failures

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IBM 3880 - 1 or 2 (IBM DASD and Control Units Facts Folder G520-3075-2) William Donzelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 05/21/2007 02:02 PM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List To IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU cc Subject Re

Re: 3350 failures

IBM 3880 - 1 or 2 (IBM DASD and Control Units Facts Folder G520-3075-2) OK, thanks. I need to find a 3880 anyway, so now this doubles the reason. -- Will -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send

Re: 3350 failures

IBM 3880 - 1 or 2 (IBM DASD and Control Units Facts Folder G520-3075-2) William Donzelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 05/21/2007 02:02 PM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List To IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU cc Subject Re: 3350 failures Will

Re: 3350 failures

In a message dated 5/21/2007 1:02:57 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Will a 3880 with proper microcode control 3350s? Yes. Bill Fairchild Plainfield, IL ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Re: 3350 failures

Yes, they were kludgy way back then and absurd now, but it seems he wants to get one or more working and attached to a mainframe for reason(s) he has not divulged. There is no secret to why I want 3350s - it is to save, assemble, and restore old mainframe systems. There are a small number of u

Re: 3350 failures

Bill Fairchild writes > Yes, they were kludgy way back then and absurd now, but it seems he wants > to > get one or more working and attached to a mainframe for reason(s) he has > not > divulged. Even though their 635MB can be replaced by a more modern > device > that fits in your pocket, I don't

Re: 3350 failures

In a message dated 5/17/2007 3:30:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>On Thu, 17 May 2007 15:01:48 -0400, William Donzelli wrote: >>I have a lead on a few 3350s - obsolete, but that is the point >What point its that? By today's standards they are very slow.

3350 failures

Yers. I can't remember a seal problem. There were problems sometimes which were supposedly to do with the lubricant on the heads (they land on the pack when it's switched off) causing stiction if the drive wasn't powered up for a while. Not a problem with Hitachi or Amdahl, not too bad with IB

Re: 3350 failures

Since it is for a museum environment, you should ask your local IBM office to donate some maintenance expertise. You might have to supply multiple 3350's as source parts for repairs. Yes, this is the case with all old 14" drives, IBM or otherwise. Unfortunately those made by IBM seem not to have

Re: 3350 failures

On Thu, 17 May 2007 15:01:48 -0400, William Donzelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have a lead on a few 3350s - obsolete, but that is the point - and >the owner mentioned that the typical failure mode is the breakdown and >failure of the seals, letting crud get on the platters. Can any of the >old

Re: 3350 failures

Since it is for a museum environment, you should ask your local IBM office to donate some maintenance expertise. You might have to supply multiple 3350's as source parts for repairs. /Tom Kern On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:45:52 -0400, William Donzelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >I have a lead on a f

Re: 3350 failures

>I have a lead on a few 3350s - obsolete, but that is the point What point its that? By today's standards they are very slow. And at 635 MB per unit, you can get the capacity of several strings for a couple of hundred dollars and carry it in your pocket. The point is not to put these in

Re: 3350 failures

No, but you might look here http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3350.html Never a good thing when your device shows up in the history section of IBM's website. :-) Thanks, Fletch Dilbert - "I ask for so little..and boy do I get it." --

Re: 3350 failures

On Thu, 17 May 2007 15:01:48 -0400, William Donzelli wrote: >I have a lead on a few 3350s - obsolete, but that is the point What point its that? By today's standards they are very slow. And at 635 MB per unit, you can get the capacity of several strings for a couple of hundred dollars an

3350 failures

I have a lead on a few 3350s - obsolete, but that is the point - and the owner mentioned that the typical failure mode is the breakdown and failure of the seals, letting crud get on the platters. Can any of the oldtimers here elaborate? Does anyone still service 3350s? Also, does anyone know the