Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cfa!ward
From: ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Ward)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: VMS v5.0 & RD53 system disks
Summary: I think it's true...>= RD54 or bust...
Message-ID: <1023@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>
Date: 16 May 88 18:51:59 GMT
References: <2898@tekgen.TEK.COM> <1472@nrcvax.UUCP>
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics
Lines: 29

In article <1472@nrcvax.UUCP>, kvc@nrcvax.UUCP (Kevin Carosso) writes:
> In article <2898@tekgen.TEK.COM> davel@tekgen.TEK.COM (Dave LaMora) writes:
> >I have recently been told that RD53s will no longer be allowed as system
> >disks due to the new "one size fits all" VMS.  Has anyone else heard anything
> >about this???
> 
> I believe that it's the RD52 that won't be supported.  An RD53 should be
> fine.
> 
>         /Kevin Carosso                     kvc@nrc.com
>          Network Research Co.              kvc@ymir.bitnet
>                                            kvc@nrcvax.uucp


Well, recently we tried to install VMS 4.6 (the "standard" version, NOT
MicroVMS 4.6) and the installation barfed and aborted because we had an
RD53 system disk.  Fortunately we had an RD54 at hand, but if this holds
true for merged VMS, then you will need an RD54 or bigger system disk.

Of course, you can probably "hack" your way around the upgrade or
install procedures, but life is too short to worry about it.  We took
the expedient route and used RD54's, which fortunately for us, we were
thinking about doing, anyway.  Still, it was irritating to forced to
do so.

Most sites using the standard VMS distribution probably never noticed
this "feature" of V4.6 because the system disk for such users is almost
always >= an RD54 (an RA or clone variant).  I assume the standard
distr. of 4.7 is the same.  Repeat:  I am NOT REFERRING TO MICROVMS.