On Sat, 10/5/2024 1:01 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 23:31:46 -0400, "186282@ud0s4.net"
> <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/24 1:13 PM, Rich wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>>> Optical disks - esp M-Disks - can LAST ... but they
>>>> are LOW-DENSITY by today's defs by a BIG margin.
>>>> It's also not clear if you'd be able to FIND a
>>>> DVD reader device 25 years from now. Even most
>>>> current PCs/laptops don't COME with those anymore.
>>>
>>> Which is exactly the problem.
>>>
>>> Your DVD 'media' might survive 1,000 years. But if you can't buy a DVD
>>> reader for any price, all that 'media' is useless.
>>>
>>> We've already seen that issue before. Try to find a Zip disk or
>>> SuperDisk drive. If any could be purchased, they would all be from
>>> places like eBay and of questionable operational quality.
>>
>> I actually HAVE a gen-1 ZipDisk - parallel port.
>> They were supposed to be The Future :-)
>>
>> Now nothing even comes with a parallel port.
>> Does anybody sell a USB->DB25 Parallel ?
>
> I put all by ZipDisks on CD-R, and have a directory on my current
> computer with them on it as well.
>
> I have another computer that still runs, but the monitor died, and i
> was unable to replace it. It had an SCSI connection, which was
> supposed to be the future. Has anyone seen anything with a SCSI port
> recently?
>
> Computer entropy is real.

It's called SAS now (Serial Attached SCSI).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Attached_SCSI

The name lives on.

And it is the same progression as IDE. IDE went from a parallel
cable to a serial cable (SATA). SCSI went from a parallel cable
to a serial cable (SAS). Generally, the physical layer on SAS
is more sophisticated (pre-emphasis, line built out, longer cables,
higher amplitude).

One difference might be, that some of the "novelty" SCSI devices
have disappeared. SAS is at least disk drives. But I don't really
know what else you can get.

USB4 will outstrip SAS, but the USB4 will also have a limited
cable length (2.6 feet???).

There is no point of anyone making SCSI parallel controller cards,
like Adaptec, if there are no new disk drives with SCSI parallel
interfaces shipping. Just as there are no IDE drives now.
The largest IDE was 750GB or so. I got my last "spare" IDE DVD from
a surplus shop ten minutes from here (after they stopped making
IDE DVDs).

Where the limitation comes in, is finding a SCSI controller chip
on a PCI Express card. My collection of SCSI cards here are
all PCI. The last machine with a PCI slot is now ten years old.
Two of my other machines had motherboard failures, which has
really "hollowed out" my redundancy plan. I will soon
have nothing current, to use the PCI cards in the junk room.
I have a 2906 to run the old scanner, but the old scanner
needs some repair work now. I don't know if I have the skill
to figure out the root cause. It might be dirty... but I doubt it.

The "rot" is at multiple levels, not just one level.
That's why the "rot" is accelerating. There are fewer things
you can depend on. It would be OK perhaps, if only one
standard took a shit. When two or three take a shit,
now you're talking real money.

Paul

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
On 2024-10-05, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> Where the limitation comes in, is finding a SCSI controller chip
> on a PCI Express card. My collection of SCSI cards here are
> all PCI. The last machine with a PCI slot is now ten years old.

eBay to the rescue:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/186666030635

Adaptec 29230LPE PCIe Ultra320 SCSI Controller Card
US$400.59 or best offer.

There is another one for $250, and a different brand (LSI Logic
LSI21320-R) for $25.

> Two of my other machines had motherboard failures, which has
> really "hollowed out" my redundancy plan. I will soon
> have nothing current, to use the PCI cards in the junk room.
> I have a 2906 to run the old scanner, but the old scanner
> needs some repair work now. I don't know if I have the skill
> to figure out the root cause. It might be dirty... but I doubt it.
>
> The "rot" is at multiple levels, not just one level.
> That's why the "rot" is accelerating. There are fewer things
> you can depend on. It would be OK perhaps, if only one
> standard took a shit. When two or three take a shit,
> now you're talking real money.
>
> Paul

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 23:31:46 -0400, "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>> I actually HAVE a gen-1 ZipDisk - parallel port.
>> They were supposed to be The Future :-)
>>
>> Now nothing even comes with a parallel port.
>> Does anybody sell a USB->DB25 Parallel ?

If they do, the access to it would be a driver for a USB device.
The driver for the ZIP disk would be looking for the hardware registers
for a parallel port, while providing an API for a disk drive. That will
not work.

On 2024-10-05, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> I put all by ZipDisks on CD-R, and have a directory on my current
> computer with them on it as well.
>
> I have another computer that still runs, but the monitor died, and i
> was unable to replace it. It had an SCSI connection, which was
> supposed to be the future. Has anyone seen anything with a SCSI port
> recently?

What vintage is that computer? Does it have PCI or PCIe expansion slots?
On eBay you can likely find a PCI or PCIe SCSI expansion board. If you
plug that in, Windows can probably find a disk device driver that works
with it. Linux would almost certainly support it.

Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 05:05 this Friday (GMT):
> Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>> On 30/09/2024 22:35, Ant wrote:
>> > candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> >> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 00:15 this Monday (GMT):
>> >>> Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On 28/09/2024 16:14, Ant wrote:
>> >>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> +1 for M-Disc BDR. I use the 100GB version.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Aren't they slow? Burning DVDs and CDs take forever! :(
>> >>>
>> >>>> Yeah, my 60 GB weekly backup set takes about 3 hours to get on disc.
>> >>>> DVDs are nothing compared to that.
>
>> That is burning 55GB to a 100GB-capable BD-R/M-disc, using USB-3 to an
>> external Pioneer M-Disc compatible BD-R drive.
>> >>> Oof. Even copying files with USB between HDDs is slow enough for me. Haha.
>> >
>> >> Might be a issue with your computer? That's weird.
>> >
>> > Like overnight, I copied 455 GB that took about 1.5 hrs. ;P
>
>> From what media to what media?
>
>> Using what data path?
>
> Internal SATA 7200 RPM 2 GB HDD to external 2.5" 5 TB USB3 HDDs.

Oh cool
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Some time ago, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>> >>>> Yeah, my 60 GB weekly backup set takes about 3 hours to get on disc.
>>> >>>> DVDs are nothing compared to that.
>>> That is burning 55GB to a 100GB-capable BD-R/M-disc, using USB-3 to an
>>> external Pioneer M-Disc compatible BD-R drive.

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> >> Might be a issue with your computer? That's weird.

On 30/09/2024 22:35, Ant wrote:
>>> > Like overnight, I copied 455 GB that took about 1.5 hrs. ;P

Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>>> From what media to what media?
>>> Using what data path?

Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 05:05 this Friday (GMT):
>> Internal SATA 7200 RPM 2 GB HDD to external 2.5" 5 TB USB3 HDDs.

I am not surprised that a BD-R drive is slower than a HDD.