| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1454.1 | | CSC32::BUTTERWORTH | Gun Control is a steady hand. | Thu Dec 19 1996 13:00 | 7 |
| You mean the old fibre optic modems that used to be sold with VCS?
If so then you will probably need an H8571-C decconnect to 25-pin
adapter and a short lenght of BC16E cable.
Regs,
Dan
|
| 1454.2 | cable, adapter ? dec423 and optic fiber | LIL04::MATHIEU | | Fri Dec 20 1996 07:05 | 17 |
| Hello,
I have an alphaserver with a console 9pins or HSJ40 with DEC423.
I want to connect this alpha, HSJ40 on a decserver 200 via fiber optic
cable.
1. QUESTION :
Is this necessary to use fiber optic.In which case, it's necessary ?
2. Question
Which adpater? , cable? , I Must have for this connexion between HSJ40
(dec423) or ALPHA (9 pin) and decserver 200.
Thanks for help.
Philippe
|
| 1454.3 | | CSC32::BUTTERWORTH | Gun Control is a steady hand. | Fri Dec 20 1996 14:53 | 12 |
| You do not need fibre-optic. Digital retired the old VCS fibre-optic setup
years ago.
To hook and HSJ40 to a decserver 200 you need
1 - BC16E decconnect cable of appropriate length
1 - H8575-A decconect to 25 pin adapter. This adapter will plug into
25 pin ports on your DECServer 200.
Regards,
Dan
|
| 1454.4 | thanks | LIL04::MATHIEU | | Tue Dec 31 1996 07:05 | 3 |
| Thanks for Help,
Philippe
|
| 1454.5 | Way-back machine set to 1990? | CRLRFR::BLUNT | | Tue Dec 31 1996 07:09 | 34 |
|
To add a rather late statement; the old VCS fiber setup was a major
problem to install and maintain. The main reason (from memory) for the
fiber was to "electronically" isolate the monitored systems from the
a) DECserver or b) monitoring system. It wasn't uncommon to have
setups where the monitoring system was directly connected to the
monitored systems via directly connected comm ports. Hence, there was
concern that there might be a problem with different ground planes.
Depending on circumstances, I may just have to go back to one of these
sites and bring this configuration back up. Oh, joy... It's been
sitting for over a year without power, and I just can't wait. Where
did I put all those H8571s, that spool of MMJ cable, crimp tool and
connectors?
The biggest issue with the fiber wasn't operational, but the hardware
itself. The cables were really easily broken, the power supplies were
generally stuck under the floor, the adapters were difficult to connect
to the fiber. There was one single power supply for up to 8 units that
was a single-point-of-failure, too. Since many installations put all
this gear under the floor, we had problems with water, problems with
the cables getting "buried" and disconnected.
Now, if you have a supplier for a more robust, less problem prone fiber
solution, and it will in essence do what Dan described in .-1, it should
work. Support, however, is another question...
As a side question, if your cabling isn't EXACTLY as detailed in .-1,
are you still supported? Our customer didn't want to buy the specific
cable we specified (MMJ to 16-port DS700, can't recall the part #).
Their cable guys built to pin-out the same thing. It's working, but
have we violated support (or do we even get that granular)?
bob
|
| 1454.6 | | CSC32::BUTTERWORTH | Gun Control is a steady hand. | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:03 | 58 |
| > -< Way-back machine set to 1990? >-
To add a rather late statement; the old VCS fiber setupH> was a major
> problem to install and maintain. The main reason (from memory) for the
> fiber was to "electronically" isolate the monitored systems from the
> a) DECserver or b) monitoring system. It wasn't uncommon to have
> setups where the monitoring system was directly connected to the
> monitored systems via directly connected comm ports. Hence, there was
> concern that there might be a problem with different ground planes.
Gee Mr. Peabody your analysis is spot on. :-}. In the early days of
VCS, direct connections to local async ports was the *only supported* method.
Holy serial lines Batman - we had to use DHV11/DZ11's!!!!!
Over and above the ground loop problem the fibre setup was also immune to
electrical overstress and electrostatic discharge.
> Depending on circumstances, I may just have to go back to one of these
> sites and bring this configuration back up. Oh, joy... It's been
> sitting for over a year without power, and I just can't wait.
And I thought I was the only one to have a box-full of this stuff
lying around.
>The biggest issue with the fiber wasn't operational, but the hardware
>itself. The cables were really easily broken, the power supplies were
>generally stuck under the floor, the adapters were difficult to connect
>to the fiber. There was one single power supply for up to 8 units that
>was a single-point-of-failure, too. Since many installations put all
>his gear under the floor, we had problems with water, problems with
>the cables getting "buried" and disconnected.
> Now, if you have a supplier for a more robust, less problem prone fiber
> solution, and it will in essence do what Dan described in .-1, it should
> work. Support, however, is another question...
Quite frankly, I have never personally had a customer call me with an
electrically related problem caused by the use of DECConnect parts thus
the fibre optic setup is a waste of money IMHO.
> As a side question, if your cabling isn't EXACTLY as detailed in .-1,
> are you still supported? Our customer didn't want to buy the specific
> cable we specified (MMJ to 16-port DS700, can't recall the part #).
> Their cable guys built to pin-out the same thing. It's working, but
> have we violated support (or do we even get that granular)?
The VCS SPD was much stricter than PCM. As long as the cabling works
I don't have a problem with it. However, if a problem is traced to a
cable I never hestitate to ask that it be changed. If the customer
has ongoing problems with PCM that are traced to their own
home-grown cables then they'll probably be getting a bill! Personally,
I've never understood the customers that have this need to make their
own cables - with some of them I've run into it's practically a
religion! DECconnect is cheap!!!
Regs,
Dan
|