Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!wesommer
From: wesommer@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (William Sommerfeld)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.periphs
Subject: Re: magtape device naming conventions
Message-ID: <1161@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 13:14:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1161
Posted: Tue Sep 16 13:14:28 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Sep-86 22:41:14 EDT
References: <355@sputnik.fluke.UUCP>
Reply-To: wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld)
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 18
Xref: mnetor net.unix-wizards:7895 net.periphs:531

In article <355@sputnik.fluke.UUCP> norm@fluke.UUCP (Norm Seethoff) writes:
>We are wrestling with a common magtape device naming scheme which can be
>used across all of our UN*X systems, independent of vendor.  It seems clear
>that we need to retain the /dev/{mt mt0 mt4 mt8 mt12 rmt*} conventions
>for compatibility with existing software.  What we would like to do,
>however, is create a parallel naming convention which would even make
>sense to novice users.
>                                   Rewind On Close   No Rewind On Close
>              1600  bpi buffered   /dev/mt1600       /dev/nmt1600
>              1600  bpi raw        /dev/rmt1600      /dev/nrmt1600
>              6250  bpi buffered   /dev/mt6250       /dev/nmt6250
>              6250  bpi raw        /dev/rmt6250      /dev/nrmt6250
>             

We have it set up *exactly* this way on our timesharing systems, and
have found it to be quite convenient.

					- Bill