Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163504
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.folklore.computers |
| Subject | Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? |
| Date | 2016-05-10 12:01 +0200 |
| Organization | Me, Myself and I |
| Message-ID | <e5o80d-k6i.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> (permalink) |
| References | <PM00053161ACFBFD0A@aca405eb.ipt.aol.com> <4O1Yy.15985$6I7.4514@fx16.iad> <ngqg0v11dmi@news6.newsguy.com> <ngr3mn$k75$2@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
In article <ngr3mn$k75$2@pechter.eternal-september.org>, William Pechter <pechter@pechter.net> wrote: >In article <ngqg0v11dmi@news6.newsguy.com>, >Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>On 2016-05-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> >>>> Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Would having a buffer ring be too complicated? >>>>> >>>>> Would have been unnecessary, the double buffer algorithm used 100% of >>>>> the device (disk /tape) bandwidth as it was. Adding more wouldn't have >>>>> improved performance. >>>>> >>>>> This was used in the code that installed the operating system (COLDSTART) >>>>> onto the boot media. >>>> >>>> Ah, you were the only one on the system; that makes a differnce. I was >>>> trying to think of a way to not have to stop the magtape because getting >>>> it started again would take finagling (tapes move when idle). >>> >>> Tapes on the dozen models of tape drives I used never moved when idle. >> >>If they did, it was time to call in the CE. >> >>-- >>/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) >>\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. >> X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. >>/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! > > >Only time tapes move when they're idle is when there's some tach >or vacuum switch (or leak) issue making it move. Tape should be still >when not reading/writing or rewinding. If not call the tech to bring >the adjustment gear. Until the drive is worn. After a good number of years the vacuum column started leaking; just a little bit, on all of our Kennedy tape drives. They had a little movement of tape, but the electronics saw to it that there was no net movement of tape, just a little vibration, 2-3 mm at the most, when the tape was in the most worn part of the vacumm column. Since we used software that made the tapes stream as much as possible this was never a real problem. -- mrr
Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-26 11:42 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-04-26 14:36 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:42 +0200
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-04-27 13:48 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-04-28 08:41 +0200
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-27 12:40 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-04-27 14:51 +0100
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-04-27 22:27 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-28 12:06 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-04-28 07:49 -0700
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-28 17:03 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-04-28 12:18 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-04-28 11:19 -0700
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-04-28 14:19 -0700
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-04-29 16:47 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-29 12:18 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-28 17:03 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-29 12:18 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-04-29 15:14 +0200
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? pechter@pechter.net (William Pechter) - 2016-05-03 14:09 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-04-27 22:19 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? pechter@pechter.net (William Pechter) - 2016-05-03 14:21 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? pechter@pechter.net (William Pechter) - 2016-05-03 14:03 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-05-03 13:58 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-05-03 14:22 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? pechter@pechter.net (William Pechter) - 2016-05-04 20:21 +0000
tape drives [was Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)?] Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-03 15:39 -0400
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-04 13:02 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-05-04 11:45 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-05 01:13 +0200
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-05-05 14:25 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-05 19:34 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-06 13:28 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-06 14:39 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-06 14:41 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-07 16:47 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-07 23:30 +0100
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-08 13:08 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-05-07 16:07 -0500
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-07 21:23 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-08 13:08 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-09 15:13 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-09 17:05 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? pechter@pechter.net (William Pechter) - 2016-05-09 22:41 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-10 12:01 +0200
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 06:42 -0400
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-10 13:05 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 13:27 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-10 15:53 +0200
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: IBM's 96 column punch card (was System/3)? "Simo" <dhy287@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 04:56 +1000
csiph-web