How does Microport System V/AT handle bad blocks?

[Bill Kennedy]

In article <920 at kksys.mn.org> gk at kksys.UUCP (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
>In article <798 at splut.UUCP> jay at splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <211 at trevan.UUCP> trevor at trevan.UUCP (trevor) writes:
>        [ comments about Microport fsck trashing disks...]
>>>This must be the worst bug in Microports system and is worse than most
>>>viruses. Why didnt Microport warn us of this problem? If they knew
>>>about it I think it was totally negligent of them not to have told us.

[ Greg points out that they did tell us ]

>long discussions with them regarding it.  They informed us that there
>was a known problem with fsck, and that "someone is working on it".
>This was with the 1.3.6 release.  As of the 2.2 release it still was
>not fixed.

It's still documented (and, unfortunately, confirmed) in 2.4.  I'm unsure
of the need for file systems > 130,000 blocks on a '286.  I encountered
it because I needed a half height drive and the one I got was 122Mb, so
I juggled things until the drive and 2.4 were happy with each other (no
help from the install instructions!).  The 72Mb drive was plenty for
what I wanted but it was physically too large.

>We did discover a workaround though...  Replace the system with a '386
>running Interactive 386/ix.  Works great!  Also fixes all the other
>problems that Microport is "working on".
>
>Of course, this "solution" IS a bit expensive....

Here I disagree with Greg but only partially.  He's right on target with
the overall premise, i.e. don't buy Microport.  I disagree that it's
expensive.  If you place any value on your system's reliability, user
satisfaction, or your own time, avoiding Microport is quite cost effective.

I view Microport's "offerings" (no, I will still not dignify them by
calling them "products") as experimental.  What *IS* expensive is what
they charge for experimental works alleged to be products.  I have a
'286 that runs V/AT but it's my luggable that accompanies me when I'm on
the road.  As such, the quirks, bugs, and anomalies are 100% my responsibility
and I am the only one victimized by them.  I expect no support and get
none, so I am never disappointed.  If you are going to run a System V
on an AT/clone, I'm not aware of anything else.  AT&T had a very nice
System V for the PC 6300 PLUS.  I think it will help your blood pressure
if you can accept V/AT as an experiment by experimenters, it does mine.

Changing to a '386 makes a lot of sense if you have to have decent reliability
and user satisfaction (even if you're the only user :-).  Avoiding Microport
makes even more sense.  I tried V/386 and pitched it (and the $$) into the
street when I saw what it was going to do to my uucp neighbors and users
who have come to think of this system as "available, usable, and reliable".
The money hurt because it was a lot of it and it was mine, personally.  I
concluded that I would have spent far more on the telephone and chasing
alleged "problems" and would never achieve what I set out to do.  It was
amazing how my "hardware problems" vanished when I installed AT&T 386 UNIX.
It's ironic how many of those "hardware problems" are documented as bug
fixes in 3.06e and disappointing how many of them would still be wrong
with my equipment if I used 3.06e.

I think that what we have here is a perceptual problem.  I think that the
average '286/'386 user came from one of two camps, down from minis or up
from PC's.  There may be a few who dove in from nowhere but probably not
many.  Those who came down from minis are apalled that fundamental things
(fsck, device drivers, etc.) don't work right.  Those coming up from PC's
are puzzled because their hardware doesn't work right with this new stuff.

The perceptual problem is compounded because we are probably mostly
individuals buying with our own money.  We expect a certain minimum
functionality and we don't get it.  If it was a car or a microwave oven
there's a manufacturer's warranty, statutory relief; with Microport
there's an arrogant snort.  That pisses us off (just like a lemon car)
because it was our own money and our expectations, the reasonable ones,
were neither met nor are they likely to be.  The arrogant snort I refer
to is not from the technically inclined and conscientious personnel at
Microport.  I think that they are as outraged and upset as those of us
whose money pays their salaries.  Management either doesn't care or
won't listen.

So who is the winner and who is the loser?  As long as we, in the
marketplace, keep approving their effort by continuing to spend money
on it, we will lose and management will win.  The situation can not
and will not change until we make it change.  We, the customers,
constructed the (in my opinion) fraud, and it is our responsibility to
make it stop.  Greg made it stop, he changed equipment and vendors.
Now he has achieved the expected minumum functionality and probably more.
Until a clear signal is sent to Microport management, in a language they
understand, we are wasting time and blood pressure being outraged.  For
all of John Plocher's efforts (I believe them to be considerable), have
we seen a significant change?  I haven't.  Can we expect John to make
management apply the resources to produce a respectable product?  I
think not, but you and I can.

Am I a hypocrite for buying, using, and upgrading V/AT?  For my equipment
it's the only game in town and bad breath is better than no breath at all.
Sorry for the length, but I hadn't seen this said before and I thought
it needed saying.
-- 
Bill Kennedy  usenet      {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
              internet    bill at ssbn.WLK.COM