Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!upvax!stevewa
From: stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: 2 hardrives of different interfaces allowed to coexist?
Message-ID: <1106@upvax.UUCP>
Date: 22 Aug 90 19:36:54 GMT
References: <1990Aug21.235008.13039@ico.isc.com> <1990Aug22.061223.15564@fiver>
Reply-To: stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward)
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Portland, Portland, OR
Lines: 28

In article <1990Aug22.061223.15564@fiver> palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) writes:
> Ahh, somebody mentioned the magic word "secondary" controller. Has anyone
>ever tested this setup. Say with the second disk controller on interupt 15?
>ISC? ESIX? or SCO UNIX?  I have run some disk bench tests on a Conner and
>Maxtor IDE drive (under ESIX) and I would perfer to go the IDE over SCSI.
>It seems to be a better cost performance ratio. I wouldn't mind moveing my
>ESDI drives over to the secondary controller but I'm not sure how to set 
>this up. What's more amazeing is in the ATT manuals they reference a 
>secondary controller (or at least reference to the device names) but 
>I cannot find any setup info?

I called Western Digital on this very subject...I bought an ESDI controller,
and wanted to use my old ST506 as a secondary controller.  They *assured*
me that even if I got the addressing and interrupts changed, it wouldn't
work.

If that's true, then why do all the controller cards have secondary address
jumpers????

Is there anyone out there who has two controllers (SCSI doesn't count!)
running in the same box happily???

Steve
-- 
| Steve Ward Jr. appears courtesy of       |            stevewa@upvax.UUCP    |
| Univ. of Portland, Portland, OR          |         !tektronix!upvax!stevewa |
| (insert disclaimer here)                 |  upvax!stevewa@tektronix.TEK.COM |
| --If all else fails, try:      tektronix.TEK.COM!upvax!stevewa@uunet.uu.net |