|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > July 2007 > Bulkiest removable storage media?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Bulkiest removable storage media?
|
|
| Tim Shoppa 2007-06-12, 1:15 pm |
| What's the bulkiest removable storage media? Drums etc. don't count
because you don't often switch the drum (although they certainly could
be heavy judging by nothing but the size of the bearings). I worked
with RP06 packs and some funky optical tape reels in the past, but
those were pretty measly compared to some others I have seen or heard
about :
An IMAX 3-D reel can be 350 pounds and even the projector room even
has a dedicated forklift for helping load them:
http://www.architectureweek.com/200...ilding_1-2.html
An SSEC "paper tape" reel was punched-card-width stock not cut into
individual cards, sprocket holed and with 78 usable columns, and a
reel of it weighed 400 pounds:
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/ssec-tape.html
Any other bulkier examples I'm missing?
Tim.
| |
| Stan Barr 2007-06-12, 7:14 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:32:49 -0700, Tim Shoppa
<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>What's the bulkiest removable storage media? Drums etc. don't count
>because you don't often switch the drum (although they certainly could
>be heavy judging by nothing but the size of the bearings). I worked
>with RP06 packs and some funky optical tape reels in the past, but
>those were pretty measly compared to some others I have seen or heard
>about :
>
>An IMAX 3-D reel can be 350 pounds and even the projector room even
>has a dedicated forklift for helping load them:
> http://www.architectureweek.com/200...ilding_1-2.html
>
>An SSEC "paper tape" reel was punched-card-width stock not cut into
>individual cards, sprocket holed and with 78 usable columns, and a
>reel of it weighed 400 pounds:
> http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/ssec-tape.html
>
>Any other bulkier examples I'm missing?
The original BBC steel tape video recorders? Huge reels of thin steel
tape, spliced by welding and grinding!
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)
The future was never like this!
| |
| Eric Sosman 2007-06-12, 7:14 pm |
| Stan Barr wrote On 06/12/07 14:44,:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:32:49 -0700, Tim Shoppa
> <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The original BBC steel tape video recorders? Huge reels of thin steel
> tape, spliced by welding and grinding!
Clay tablets? Around 5 grams per bit, I'd guess,
plus or minus Finagle's Variable Constant.
--
Eric.Sosman@sun.com
| |
| Bit Banger 2007-06-13, 1:14 am |
| Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@sun.com> wrote:
> Clay tablets? Around 5 grams per bit, I'd guess,
>plus or minus Finagle's Variable Constant.
Probably a lot more than that, if you want adequate redundancy.
I have these 15! [Whoops! *crash*] ... 10! 10 distribution media!
| |
| Eric Sosman 2007-06-13, 1:14 am |
| Bit Banger wrote:
> Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Probably a lot more than that, if you want adequate redundancy.
>
> I have these 15! [Whoops! *crash*] ... 10! 10 distribution media!
... and the other five get swept up and put in the
<... wait for it ...>
.... bit bucket.
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@acm-dot-org.invalid
| |
| Frank McCoy 2007-06-13, 1:14 am |
| In alt.folklore.computers Eric Sosman <esosman@acm-dot-org.invalid>
wrote:
>Bit Banger wrote:
>
> ... and the other five get swept up and put in the
>
>
>
>
>
> <... wait for it ...>
>
>
>
>
>
>... bit bucket.
WOM.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
| |
|
|
| Tim Shoppa 2007-06-13, 1:14 pm |
| On Jun 13, 6:01 am, David R Brooks <daveb...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Stan Barr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I forwarded this to a friend who worked at the BBC: this is his reply:
>
> = It sounds like VERA, can't remember whether or not it was steel tape. One
> = of these pages just says "magnetic tape"
> =
> =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_videotape_format
> =
> =http://www.terramedia.co.uk/Chronomedia/years/bbc_vera.htm
> =
> =http://www.vtoldboys.com/vera2.htm
Working with the figures provided (20" diameter, 1/2" thick) and a
density of steel of 7.8g/cc,I get a weight of 20kg which is like 44
pounds. (Yes, this ignores the weight of the reel itself, but it also
overestimates the weight of the tape because the center of the reel is
not occupied). A bit of a pain to lift up to head-height, but not a
contender compared to 400 pounds!
Tim.
| |
| Dave Wade 2007-06-13, 1:14 pm |
|
"Tim Shoppa" <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote in message
news:1181669569.093964.112030@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> What's the bulkiest removable storage media? Drums etc. don't count
> because you don't often switch the drum (although they certainly could
> be heavy judging by nothing but the size of the bearings). I worked
> with RP06 packs and some funky optical tape reels in the past, but
> those were pretty measly compared to some others I have seen or heard
> about :
>
> An IMAX 3-D reel can be 350 pounds and even the projector room even
> has a dedicated forklift for helping load them:
> http://www.architectureweek.com/200...ilding_1-2.html
>
Well if you count printed output (you could scan it in again)
http://www.rollsystems.com/1-RolltoRoll.html
> An SSEC "paper tape" reel was punched-card-width stock not cut into
> individual cards, sprocket holed and with 78 usable columns, and a
> reel of it weighed 400 pounds:
> http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/ssec-tape.html
>
> Any other bulkier examples I'm missing?
>
> Tim.
>
| |
| Stan Barr 2007-06-13, 1:14 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:48:43 -0700, Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com>
wrote:
[RE: BBC VERA]
>
>Working with the figures provided (20" diameter, 1/2" thick) and a
>density of steel of 7.8g/cc,I get a weight of 20kg which is like 44
>pounds. (Yes, this ignores the weight of the reel itself, but it also
>overestimates the weight of the tape because the center of the reel is
>not occupied). A bit of a pain to lift up to head-height, but not a
>contender compared to 400 pounds!
I'm glad someone reminded me of the name...
I've got an article about it in a magazine *somewhere*, which is where
I remembered it from. Quite where that mag is in the hundreds I've got
here I don't know!
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)
The future was never like this!
| |
| Walter Bushell 2007-06-13, 7:14 pm |
| per byte it must be some kind of flopy. Just think of a gigabyte worth
of floppies would look like. OTOH don't. Probably punched paper tape,
though.
| |
| Anne & Lynn Wheeler 2007-06-13, 7:14 pm |
| Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> writes:
> per byte it must be some kind of flopy. Just think of a gigabyte worth
> of floppies would look like. OTOH don't. Probably punched paper tape,
> though.
maybe half gigabyte ....
another of the experimental ideas ... from the person responsible
for 801
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801
.... in addition to the recent mention of the 16+2 track head (i.e.
single head that simultaneously would read/write 16 data tracks while
tracking two servo tracks) ... old email with 16+2 track/head reference
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#30#email871230
in this post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#30 Why magnetic drums was/are worse than disks ?
some technology, sort of combination from 2321 datacell and old time
disks with single arm moving between platters. it had several hundred
floppies all rotating on a single (horizontal) shaft. r/w head moved
back&forth along the spindle ... and when the r/w head got into position
at the correct floppy ... shot of compressed air (2321 sort of had
something similar as part of inserting strip back into its bin) would
separate the floppies so the head could be inserted (had sort of leading
thin blade that entered first). there was a problem (i don't believe was
ever resolved) with the floppy material streching because of the
constant spinning (this effort was in the mid-to-late 70s ... after
floppies had been invented in san jose ... but before seeing use in
PCs).
misc. past post mentioning this large number of floppies on single
spinning spindle
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#48 Competitors to SABRE?
old posts mentioning 2321
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#41 How to learn assembler language for OS/390 ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#51 Competitors to SABRE?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#78 HMC . . . does anyone out there like it ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#63 MVS History (all parts)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#16 index searching
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#22 index searching
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#84 Questions on IBM Model 1630
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#26 : Re: AS/400 and MVS - clarification please
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#40 Wanted: the SOUNDS of classic computing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#3 PLX
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#7 Disk drives as commodities. Was Re: Yamhill
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#9 Disk drives as commodities. Was Re: Yamhill
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#36 What is timesharing, anyway?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003n.html#39 DASD history
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003p.html#22 1960s images of IBM 360 mainframes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#5 The BASIC Variations
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#6 The BASIC Variations
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#41 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#18 FW: Looking for Disk Calc program/Exec
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#0 Relational vs network vs hierarchic databases
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005c.html#23 Volume Largest Free Space Problem... ???
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005h.html#32 Software for IBM 360/30
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005t.html#50 non ECC
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005v.html#6 DMV systems?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006c.html#46 Hercules 3.04 announcement
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#29 CRAM, DataCell, and 3850
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#30 CRAM, DataCell, and 3850
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#31 CRAM, DataCell, and 3850
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#31 50th Anniversary of invention of disk drives
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#32 Why magnetic drums was/are worse than disks ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#31 MB to Cyl Conversion
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006y.html#35 The Future of CPUs: What's After Multi-Core?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007b.html#19 How many 36-bit Unix ports in the old days?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#38 FBA rant
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#51 FBA rant
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#64 FBA rant
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#64 John W. Backus, 82, Fortran developer, dies
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#74 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#49 Drums: Memory or Peripheral?
| |
| Quadibloc 2007-06-13, 7:14 pm |
| Stan Barr wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:32:49 -0700, Tim Shoppa
> <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
..[vbcol=seagreen]
..[vbcol=seagreen]
..[vbcol=seagreen]
..[vbcol=seagreen]
> The original BBC steel tape video recorders? Huge reels of thin steel
> tape, spliced by welding and grinding!
..
An IMAX reel is, of course, a film reel. And the SSEC paper tape
wasn't intended to be removed except to be discarded when used up - it
was the memory of that one computer.
Still, these examples certainly have anything I might suggest beat - I
was thinking of the tape reels of the Datamatic D-1000 computer, which
were *pretty* bulky, but not in this league.
http://www.smecc.org/honeywell_datamatic_1000.htm
31-channel magnetic tape, 3 inches wide.
John Savard
| |
| CBFalconer 2007-06-14, 1:15 am |
| Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> writes:
>
>
.... snip ...
>
> some technology, sort of combination from 2321 datacell and old time
> disks with single arm moving between platters. it had several hundred
> floppies all rotating on a single (horizontal) shaft. r/w head moved
> back&forth along the spindle ... and when the r/w head got into position
> at the correct floppy ... shot of compressed air (2321 sort of had
> something similar as part of inserting strip back into its bin) would
> separate the floppies so the head could be inserted (had sort of leading
> thin blade that entered first). there was a problem (i don't believe was
> ever resolved) with the floppy material streching because of the
> constant spinning (this effort was in the mid-to-late 70s ... after
> floppies had been invented in san jose ... but before seeing use in PCs).
Sounds like an utter horror. Somebody must have been very
persuasive.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut0.../vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith 2007-06-14, 1:15 am |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:18:59 -0400
Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@sun.com> wrote:
> Clay tablets? Around 5 grams per bit, I'd guess,
> plus or minus Finagle's Variable Constant.
Hmm Fred Flintstone's time card 
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
| |
| Bit Banger 2007-06-14, 1:15 am |
| Eric Sosman <esosman@acm-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>Bit Banger wrote:
>
> ... and the other five get swept up and put in the
>
> <... wait for it ...>
>... bit bucket.
By the garbage collector, no doubt.
Or course, such incidents could lead to dangling styli.
| |
| Quadibloc 2007-06-14, 7:14 am |
| CBFalconer wrote:
> Sounds like an utter horror. Somebody must have been very
> persuasive.
..
I never heard of an IBM peripheral like that, but I know somebody made
a multi-floppy pack with something similar for the early microcomputer
world. It didn't stay very popular, but it was out there for a little
while.
John Savard
| |
| Anne & Lynn Wheeler 2007-06-14, 1:16 pm |
| Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> I never heard of an IBM peripheral like that, but I know somebody made
> a multi-floppy pack with something similar for the early microcomputer
> world. It didn't stay very popular, but it was out there for a little
> while.
well before the start of steep decline in hard disk prices (and well
before cdroms)
'80 Mbytes of storage for under $12k!' and other ad favorites through the years
http://www.computerworld.com/action...ticleId=9023960
| |
| Walter Bushell 2007-06-14, 1:16 pm |
| In article <m37iq6fu0j.fsf@garlic.com>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
> '80 Mbytes of storage for under $12k!' and other ad favorites through the
> years
Makes my purchase of a .04 gig drive for $1000 look like a bargain.
| |
| Walter Bushell 2007-06-14, 1:16 pm |
| In article <m37iq6fu0j.fsf@garlic.com>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>
> well before the start of steep decline in hard disk prices (and well
> before cdroms)
>
> '80 Mbytes of storage for under $12k!' and other ad favorites through the
> years
> http://www.computerworld.com/action...cleBasic&articl
> eId=9023960
AND 30 day delivery!
| |
| Eugene Miya 2007-06-14, 1:16 pm |
| In article <1181669569.093964.112030@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>What's the bulkiest removable storage media? Drums etc. don't count
>because you don't often switch the drum (although they certainly could
>be heavy judging by nothing but the size of the bearings). I worked
>with RP06 packs and some funky optical tape reels in the past, but
>those were pretty measly compared to some others I have seen or heard
>about :
Removeable or moveable?
Cargo container. It is the next corporate form factor.
The Internet Archive started the Petabyte box project a few years back
when Brewster realized that disk was reaching $1K/TB. The last I heard
it was slightly side tracked but others have apparently done it for the
Persian Gulf (someone for like Bechtel or some customer like that), it's
web searchable. Contained cooling and communication.
Something like $2.5M for a PB. Brewster hired Bruce who also worked on
the IBM Ice Cube project (cute, I've seen it, it's just not going to go
any where like many things at the IBM Research Centers [this has friends
bummed]). All this stuff is on the web.
I like their (IA's) idea that this was going to be mass storage for the
up and coming start ups. They were going to skip the traditional big
users of storage like the National Labs and go for internet firms.
It appeared to be Brewster's 3rd fortune. They did the guts for 1 but
it started to become safer for fault tolerance and redundancy to
separate and not concentrate the bits. Just a matter of time.
>An IMAX 3-D reel can be 350 pounds and even the projector room even
Yes and cargo containers likewise has special fork lifts for
them as well.
>An SSEC "paper tape" reel was punched-card-width stock not cut into
>
>Any other bulkier examples I'm missing?
Well, I've seen NCAR's 60 lb. Ampex tape cartridges and there is a
Harvest cartridge at the Natl. Crypto Museum at the Fort.
But when you are talking weight it depends on silly one wants to get.
I suspect that we've seen nothing yet.
--
| |
| bob.birch@gmail.com 2007-06-14, 7:14 pm |
| On Jun 14, 2:10 pm, eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote:
> In article <1181669569.093964.112...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>
>
> Removeable or moveable?
> Cargo container. It is the next corporate form factor.
> The Internet Archive started the Petabyte box project a few years back
> when Brewster realized that disk was reaching $1K/TB. The last I heard
> it was slightly side tracked but others have apparently done it for the
> Persian Gulf (someone for like Bechtel or some customer like that), it's
> web searchable. Contained cooling and communication.
>
> Something like $2.5M for a PB. Brewster hired Bruce who also worked on
> the IBM Ice Cube project (cute, I've seen it, it's just not going to go
> any where like many things at the IBM Research Centers [this has friends
> bummed]). All this stuff is on the web.
>
> I like their (IA's) idea that this was going to be mass storage for the
> up and coming start ups. They were going to skip the traditional big
> users of storage like the National Labs and go for internet firms.
> It appeared to be Brewster's 3rd fortune. They did the guts for 1 but
> it started to become safer for fault tolerance and redundancy to
> separate and not concentrate the bits. Just a matter of time.
>
>
> Yes and cargo containers likewise has special fork lifts for
> them as well.
>
>
>
> Well, I've seen NCAR's 60 lb. Ampex tape cartridges and there is a
> Harvest cartridge at the Natl. Crypto Museum at the Fort.
> But when you are talking weight it depends on silly one wants to get.
> I suspect that we've seen nothing yet.
>
> --
NCAR's tape system was Ampex's Terabit Memory System
(TBM) had 2 drives per rack an each removal tape reel
weighed about 12 lbs each, IIRC. Each reel contained
25,000 ft of 2" wide tape, 44 gigabits.
| |
| Roland Hutchinson 2007-06-14, 7:14 pm |
| Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <m37iq6fu0j.fsf@garlic.com>,
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>
http://www.computerworld.com/action...cleBasic&articl[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> AND 30 day delivery!
I'm still somewhat in awe of the fact that the new Micro Center store in
northern New Jersey can afford to hand out 2 GB flash memory devices as
promotional swag. (They sent out a mailing a couple of weeks ago: one per
customer with the mailing flyer, but also a 1 GB freebee for a friend with
the pass-along card from the flyer. Your choice of card or USB stick.
Admittedly, the stick came with that dreadful U3 software and I had to
borrow a Windows machine to reflash its firmware to get rid of it.)
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
| |
| Larry Elmore 2007-06-15, 1:14 am |
| Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <m37iq6fu0j.fsf@garlic.com>,
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>
>
> AND 30 day delivery!
somewhat offtopic: I liked the ad for the "Personal Mainframe" from 1981:
http://www.computerworld.com/action...59&pageNumber=6
| |
| Quadibloc 2007-06-15, 1:14 pm |
| Larry Elmore wrote:
> somewhat offtopic: I liked the ad for the "Personal Mainframe" from 1981:
..
Back then, that was indeed a clever idea for an ad.
But it's too bad that Digital *did* trademark the term...since today's
PCs, with hardware floating-point, caches, pipelining...are, or could
be, personal mainframes, particularly with Linux, a multi-user
operating system, running.
John Savard
| |
| Jim Haynes 2007-06-15, 7:17 pm |
| Burroughs in the era of the B-220 (circa 1960) was using 3/4" magnetic
tape that was formatted to be block-addressable. Then as an alternative
to a tape drive they had a thing with a whole bunch of tape loops on
a long capstan, with a r/w head going from tape to tape, for a sort
of random-access device. I don't remember if the tape loop container
was removable. Nor do I know if any were actually made. Some years
later Potter advertised a similar device in which the container was
definitely removable.
--
jhhaynes at earthlink dot net
| |
| Peter Flass 2007-06-15, 7:17 pm |
| Jim Haynes wrote:
> Burroughs in the era of the B-220 (circa 1960) was using 3/4" magnetic
> tape that was formatted to be block-addressable. Then as an alternative
> to a tape drive they had a thing with a whole bunch of tape loops on
> a long capstan, with a r/w head going from tape to tape, for a sort
> of random-access device. I don't remember if the tape loop container
> was removable. Nor do I know if any were actually made. Some years
> later Potter advertised a similar device in which the container was
> definitely removable.
How about Hypertape?
(http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/ma...rtape_Oct61.pdf)
The cartridge weighed 8.5lb and measured 17/10/2in.
| |
|
|
|
|
| Bill Turlock 2007-06-18, 1:14 am |
| Byron Myers wrote:
>
> You might check out NCR's CRAM.
> 512 3x14" cards had to be pretty bulky.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAM
thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....a6d2e0bc3346aaf
http://tinyurl.com/3547he
I started at UNO in the spring of 1970, hired on the basis of my
experience as a crack operator on the U1108 RTOS at USAF GWC at
Offutt. The UNO computing center had just signed a contract
w/Univac for an 1106 (de-clocked 1108). About that time IBM
started throwing their political weight around, got the contract
annulled and made them get a M40, (I think). They had both the
315 and the M40 operating while I was there.
IIRC, the card, after being selected, fell by gravity down a
channel until it met the spinning drum, where a vacuum held it to
the drum for reading and writing. To release, I think fingers
picked it off the drum and inertia shot it back up the return
channel and a solenoid-operated plate smacked it back onto the
pack, suspended by the eight " lazy-'D' " rods which were the
selection mechanism.
If some of the address notches in the cards became flexed due to
wear, it was possible for more than one card to drop
simultaneously. The channel/drum gap wasn't quite wide enough for
two cards to pass, but since they both couldn't get to the gate
precisely at the same instant, one was offset from the other,
resulting in a wedge-jam just ahead of the drum, with one card
usually halfway around the drum, being chewed up as a result.
It made a characteristic whine, audible and recognizable
throughout the machine room. Many's the time I'd be sitting in
the ops mangager's office shooting the breeze when we'd hear the
siren-like sound of the jam. Someone would shout, "double-drop!!"
and we'd all rush out to the CRAM.
The first guy there would fling the door open, drop to his knees,
and without any hesitation (if you flinched you'd get your hand
chewed up) slam the heel of his hand against the outside edge of
the spinning r/w drum to bring it to an abrupt stop.
Surprisingly, we were able to save the majority of the cards
involved in a D.D. if we were fast enough. They were quite
rugged, despite being not too much thicker than mag tape, maybe a
bit thinner than a punch card. Most of the time, IIRC, we'd have
to open the back door of the cabinet to put the drum drive belt
back on the pulley.
Here's the address template for the cards showing which parts of
the notches to trim to hard code the card number:
http://members.aol.com/billturlok/ncr/cram.jpg
It may not be intuitively obvious that the deck of mylar cards
hung on this system of eight rods, each shaped in the shape of a
"D", with the flat side of the "D" horizontal and topmost.
The red legend on the template shows which 'corner' to snip (I
can't remember whether we had a special tool, or just used
scissors to make the cuts).
Each rod could rotate axially, continuing to supporting all the
cards except the one which had been programmatically called for,
allowing it to fall into the chute. As the 'corners' got worn
from use, sometimes more than one card might fall, leading to the
impassioned cry, "DOUBLE DROP!!!"
Here is the very 315 I'm talking about :
http://www.unoalumni.org/About_Us/F...ve/92/index.asp
http://content.techweb.com/encyclop...rm=CRAM&exact=1
http://www.presshere.com/html/pw8012.htm
Bill Turlock
| |
| Dennis Ritchie 2007-06-19, 1:14 am |
|
"Bill Turlock" <"Bill Turlock "@sonnnic.invalid> wrote in message
news:4675F7E6.F3A86A1D@sonnnic.invalid...
> Byron Myers wrote:
...[vbcol=seagreen]
> IIRC, the card, after being selected, fell by gravity down a
> channel until it met the spinning drum, where a vacuum held it to
> the drum for reading and writing. To release, I think fingers
> picked it off the drum and inertia shot it back up the return
> channel and a solenoid-operated plate smacked it back onto the
> pack, suspended by the eight " lazy-'D' " rods which were the
> selection mechanism.
....
RCA had a very similar gadget called the RACE. There was
one on our Multics machine for a while. It's mentioned at
multicians.org (MIT had one too). As this article points
out, neither MIT nor we ever wrote a driver for it.
However, one of the GE CE's was much enamored of it,
and would put it through its paces every month or so, though
I don't think he played enough to explore its failure modes
(though they must have been much like the CRAM).
Dennis
| |
| Jim Haynes 2007-06-19, 7:14 pm |
| In article <5dp4t1F35oub6U1@mid.individual.net>,
Dennis Ritchie <dmr@bell-labs.com> wrote:
>
>RCA had a very similar gadget called the RACE. There was
Known around the G.E. factory as the "chicken plucker"
--
jhhaynes at earthlink dot net
| |
| Eugene Miya 2007-06-19, 7:14 pm |
| In article <m3bqffhk2o.fsf@garlic.com>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>"Byron Myers" <byron.myers@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>the ibm photostore was somewhat compareable ... then the 2321 might be
It depends is something like this is regarded as "working."
While I know 1 site was happy (providing permanent employment for at
least 1 IBM employee), other sites were less happy.
....
>Photo-digital storage system
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1360
>http://www.computerhistory.org/virt..._id=02.07.01.00
--
| |
| Anthony J. Albert 2007-06-20, 7:16 pm |
| On 14 Jun 2007 10:10:51 -0800, eugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya)
wrote:
>In article <1181669569.093964.112030@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>
>Removeable or moveable?
>Cargo container. It is the next corporate form factor.
>The Internet Archive started the Petabyte box project a few years back
>when Brewster realized that disk was reaching $1K/TB. The last I heard
>it was slightly side tracked but others have apparently done it for the
>Persian Gulf (someone for like Bechtel or some customer like that), it's
>web searchable. Contained cooling and communication.
[SNIP]
In related information, Sun Microsystems (and I believe others) have
announced complete IT centers in a standard sized shipping container.
Just hook up power and data lines. They appear to be focusing on the
idea that events might need extra processing / data warehousing for
short time periods - perhaps "Olympics Summer Games" type events? Or
in case of disaster - rent a data center to replace the one that just
got flooded, burnt down, or carried off by a tornado to Oz.
One of several articles discussing the idea:
http://siliconvalleysleuth.co.uk/20...oves_datac.html
Anthony Albert
| |
| Eugene Miya 2007-06-25, 1:14 pm |
| >>>What's the bulkiest removable storage media? Drums etc. don't count
In article <4679aaaa.273993250@news.unet.maine.edu>,
Anthony J. Albert <ajalbert@excite.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>One of several articles discussing the idea:
>http://siliconvalleysleuth.co.uk/20...oves_datac.html
What an amusing domain. It's like siliconvalley.ch.
Many people want to know what's happening in Santa Clara Valley, CA.
I now know the UK's trade rep (he asks me to convince local firms to
open up offices in the UK, the CH want help internally to bolster their
economy and be know for more than milk and milk products, watches,
knives, etc. [they do have Swatch and their own fab lines]).
I was just pointing out Sun Quintin on Friday. Weird.
--
| |
| Morten Reistad 2007-06-25, 7:14 pm |
| In article <46800292$1@darkstar>, Eugene Miya <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <4679aaaa.273993250@news.unet.maine.edu>,
>Anthony J. Albert <ajalbert@excite.com> wrote:
>
Old thread, but I just remembered;
All ship hulls made after 1988 are supposed to be marked with
their IMO numbers, up to and including cruise ships, supertankers and
container ships. For the higher SOLAS classes this must even be
bar-coded at certain strategic locations. So, yes, the harbour
electronics can determine that is DOES deal with the correct ship.
A supertanker is therefore a removable storage media, as seen
from a harbour. Things does not get much bigger that that.
-- mrr
| |
| Eugene Miya 2007-07-10, 1:14 pm |
| >>>>>What's the bulkiest removable storage media? Drums etc. don't count
In article <46800292$1@darkstar>, Eugene Miya <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
In article <f68p5f.efh2.ln@eden.reistad.name>,
Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Old thread, but I just remembered;
>
>All ship hulls made after 1988 are supposed to be marked with
>their IMO numbers, up to and including cruise ships, supertankers and
>container ships. For the higher SOLAS classes this must even be
>bar-coded at certain strategic locations. So, yes, the harbour
>electronics can determine that is DOES deal with the correct ship.
Funny you mention this.
I just saw this. I just took a DUCK, really DUKW, tour of SF as a sample
of an upcoming 80 year old's b-day. Independent of radar transponders,
etc.
>A supertanker is therefore a removable storage media, as seen
>from a harbour. Things does not get much bigger that that.
I think unless you want to specifically tag atoms or molecules
it's bordering on the stretch of the original question.
--
|
|
|
|
|