[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SCSI cable question



On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Dave Swegen wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 10:42 -0500, Ares wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Dave Swegen wrote:
[...] 
> SCSI sounds fun :)
> 
> > Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that
> > there must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one
> > on the other end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with
> > a silver-handled knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony
> > DeBoer

 It's not *that* bad, in my experience. :-> I've got two 50-pin internal
SCSI drives, an external scanner with a 50-pin shell and a 25-pin d-sub
interface, and a little 230MB removeable drive.

 The bus looks something like:


 [drive1]---50 pin ribbon cable----[drive2]--------\
                                                    |
                  /------50 pin ribbon cable-------/
                 |
                  \---------[SCSI Card]--------\
                                                |
        /-------50 pin external cable-----------/
       |
        \----[scanner]--25 pin external cable--[external drive]

 It all works fine. I didn't have to do much of anything special.
All the components have been auto-terminating so even if the cables fall
out or something it generally works. Of course, I'm only running FAST-II
SCSI (10MB/s), which tends to be more tolerant, but I doubt if too many
scanners out there *really* do much faster.

 One minor gotcha: my scanner locks the SCSI bus during a scan, so no one
else can use it. It sounds like you're only going to be having the
scanner, so it's no big deal for you. I just edited the kernel source and
bumped up the SCSI disk timeout to a couple minutes so the system wouldn't
crash when I did a scan.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles       (248) 377-7735        ray.ingles@fanucrobotics.com

    "Monkeys would be harder on equipment than college students,
          but only because they're stronger." - Jim Ingles


Reply to: