|
|
| Author |
Message |
scott
|
|
The Iomega ZIP drive item
| 
Oct 10 11:10 UTC 1996 |
I just got a parallel port ZIP. And it is *slow*! 5 hours to do a backup
of only 150M! I'll be poking around looking for solutions, but has anybody
else dealt with this? I'm 100% sure the thing can go faster with all the same
hardware.
(Win95, by the way)
|
| 36 responses total. |
n8nxf
|
|
response 1 of 36:
|
Oct 10 14:25 UTC 1996 |
I've heard that Zip drives don't work with some parallel ports. The same
source tells me that SCSI version is much more reliable. Prehaps you have
a quasi compatable parallel port.
|
scott
|
|
response 2 of 36:
|
Oct 10 16:05 UTC 1996 |
It's a standard serial port. I'm going to play with the settings a bit, and
the Win95 port settings also. At worst I spend $30 on a new high-speed port.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 3 of 36:
|
Oct 10 19:17 UTC 1996 |
In #0 you said it was a parallel port Zip drive... and your plugging it
into a serial port... Perhaps that's the problem!
|
rickyb
|
|
response 4 of 36:
|
Oct 10 22:23 UTC 1996 |
Yeah, be sure you're in the _parallel_ port. there is a utility on the Zip
Tools disk which can speed up parallel operation. I also think it runs slower
if you install it as a "guest" drive as opposed to a peripheral drive.
I have a parallel ZIP and can copy 100MB in just a few minutes. True, not
a fast as a HD, but the way I use it, I don't mind the delay.
the SCSI version is supposed to be faster, and even has an optional SCSI card
dedicated for the Zip Drive to speed it up even more. If you're not intending
to move the drive between computers you might want to re-consider which unit
to use (chain stores like Staples, Office Max, etc, will likely let you
exchange to the SCSI version...especially if you also buy the SCSI accelerator
card).
|
ajax
|
|
response 5 of 36:
|
Oct 10 22:45 UTC 1996 |
Figures I've heard for "transfer speed" of 100MB (didn't specify
reading or writing):
ZIP Parallel 10 mins
ZIP SCSI 4 mins
Jaz <2 mins
|
arthurp
|
|
response 6 of 36:
|
Oct 11 02:18 UTC 1996 |
Maybe you mean standard type parallel port versus Extended Capabilities Port,
or Extended Parallel Port? These send 8 bits of data in or out. The regular
parallel port is only for output, but there is a kludge method of sending 4
bits of data at a time into the port through the status lines. Something is
clearly very wrong if it took that long, though. That's only 8k/s. Sounds
kinda like a 115kb serial connection almost. :(
|
scott
|
|
response 7 of 36:
|
Oct 11 11:08 UTC 1996 |
I got a 2x increase in speed by telling Win95 that my parallel port uses an
IRQ, but it's still at 2+ hours for a single disk backup. Copying files
doesn't seem too bad, so I wonder if the backup program is even more
brain-damaged than it appears?
I'm thinking I might get an ECP or EPP (what *is* the difference) for my home
PC, since those are about $30 or so. I would have gone SCSI, but being able
to connect to stock PCs is important.
I recall LapLink sending data thru the parallel port pretty fast.
|
ajax
|
|
response 8 of 36:
|
Oct 11 16:11 UTC 1996 |
I'd try timing a big XCOPY to the backup disk. That should tell you
whether it's the backup program or not.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 9 of 36:
|
Oct 12 21:14 UTC 1996 |
I like the thing where you can cut a trace on the really old parallel ports
that are made from 7400 series parts and make it into a bi-directional. :)
|
scott
|
|
response 10 of 36:
|
Oct 12 22:31 UTC 1996 |
I got a ECP/EPP port, but I'm still not really happy with the speed. I'm
still thinking about possible settings for that.
The Iomega "1 Step" backup program is rather stupid. It has an annoyingly
clunky interface, although that is somewhat mitigated by the large bitmap of
a friendly, smiling Iomega tech-guy saying "I'm going to save all of your
files". My fasted backup so far was 2 1/2 hours, then I turned off
compression and got one done in less than 1 hour (took 2 disks, though). I
figure I'm getting roughly 3-3.5 Mb/minute.
|
scg
|
|
response 11 of 36:
|
Oct 13 00:29 UTC 1996 |
My dad called me this afternoon saying he was having trouble getting his Zip
drive to work, so I went over there and set it up. It seems pretty cool.
|
scott
|
|
response 12 of 36:
|
Oct 13 11:42 UTC 1996 |
I'm going to try to analyze the driver for possible settings.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 13 of 36:
|
Oct 18 15:07 UTC 1996 |
I think my transfer rates are in the range rob described... about 8-10 minutes
for a full 100MB. But that is without any backup program...simply file copy
from one disk to the other.
I've always been happy with FastBack for big backups and will try it using
the ZIP Parallel as the target to see if things are any faster (but I think
not). Can't figure out why your transfer rates seem so slow/
|
tsty
|
|
response 14 of 36:
|
Jan 31 07:37 UTC 1997 |
is there any news on the zip-like drive arena. i just got an
adaptec (slow/narrow) scsi card in this b0x. (and popped in a
486dx33 board to replace the 386sx40 mother).
now i can do things....<g>.
i'm looking for comments/advice/commentary on backup devices and,
now, cdrom hardware too. anybody hae anything, or anything interesting
to say?
|
alan
|
|
response 15 of 36:
|
Jan 31 11:18 UTC 1997 |
Use two hard drives?
|
ajax
|
|
response 16 of 36:
|
Feb 3 03:38 UTC 1997 |
SyQuest's SyJet 1.3GB removable just came out. Something like $400-
$500 for the drive, and $100 per cart. Performance is supposed to be
pretty much like hard drives.
CD-ROMs are usually cheaper in their IDE/ATAPI versions than in SCSI
versions.
|
tsty
|
|
response 17 of 36:
|
Feb 3 17:42 UTC 1997 |
have two hds.
need MuchLessExpensive than ~$300 for this situation.....
if anyone out there is upgrading to the 1..0+ gig backup hardware to
replace the 100 meg stuff, please get in touch. i can make the
upgrade less costly for you ....
|
rtgreen
|
|
response 18 of 36:
|
Mar 4 04:43 UTC 1998 |
I have an external SCSI zip drive, still in its original box, never installed.
I need to purchase an appropriate SCSI card (one with Linux driver available)
or find a willing buyer for this one, so I can purchase the internal SCSI
version, which comes with a supported card. Can anybody help me out either
way?
|
wolfg676
|
|
response 19 of 36:
|
Mar 5 00:14 UTC 1998 |
Look into any of Adaptec's line of cards. I'm pretty sure that they'd have
the drivers you need, or they're readily available. Or, I've got a Storage
Plus/Sumo-AT SCSI card that I don't use much anymore that might be what you're
looking for. You'd need a 50-25 pin adapter to use it. I have all of the
jumper setting docs too.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 20 of 36:
|
Apr 15 04:46 UTC 1998 |
Does the zip come with and Adaptec aha-1502? That might, just might
work as a 152x under linux. I don't know.
|
rtgreen
|
|
response 21 of 36:
|
Apr 15 05:32 UTC 1998 |
Yes, as a matter of fact. The 'Zip Zoom' scsi card is an exact clone of
the AHA-1502. The AHA152x driver works just fine. I'm running an
AVA-1505, which is essentially the same card, with both internal 50-pin,
and external DB-25 connectors.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 36:
|
Mar 8 18:58 UTC 1999 |
I presume everyone's ZIPs are Zipping along, give the quietude here - but
I have a question. ZIP drives/disks have a formatting buffer to replace
bad sectors when formatting, and spare sectors for filling the formatting
buffer. The percentage available of each are reported when one checks
the disk. How many sectors are the maximum in the formatting buffer,
and how many spare sectors does the disk start with?
Then...they say to refill the formatting buffer when it gets below
"50%", and retire the disk when the spare sectors get below "25%" (which
is signalled as "Percent disk life remaining". They say to use the
retired disk for Archive purposes. What happens then, when all the buffer
and spare sectors are consumed? Is the disk still useable? If formatted,
does the total available space just slowly decrease, or does it crash?
|
scott
|
|
response 23 of 36:
|
Mar 9 11:27 UTC 1999 |
Probably by the time a certain number of bad sectors have turned up the disk
itself is starting to wear out.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 36:
|
Mar 9 16:12 UTC 1999 |
Well yes....but that doesn't mean that the disk can't still be used. As I
said, they suggest that when the spare sectors get below 25% to use it
for archive purposes. There is something behind all that which the
manual file is not disclosing. For example, when all the spare sectors
are used up, does the disk still format and lock out bad sectors, so
that the total capacity slowly decreases? (Surely you don't throw out
everything that reaches its manufacturer's "shelf life", do you?)
|