[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference ssag::ask_ssag

Title:	Ask the Storage Architecture Group
Notice:	Check out our web page at http://www-starch.shr.dec.com
Moderator:	SSAG::TERZAN

Created:	Wed Oct 15 1986
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	6756
Total number of notes:	25276

6657.0. "HSx battery" by TKTVFS::NAKAMURA_Y () Tue May 06 1997 03:45

	Hello engineering,

	I have many cache battery problem recently. I notify the some problems.

	Problem 1.
	Battery date is 3/97 and cache module rev. is B01.(etch rev. H01,
	s/n:ZG54010883)
	Battery contact of cache module was corrosion and battery liquid was
	no leaked.
	I think this cache module is returned to repair center. And then,
	repair center did eco(B01) and eliminated the corrosion.

	Why replace the battery contact of cache module?

	I know cost reduction. But MCS engineer visited to the customer	twice
	and then replaced the cache module and battery.

	Problem 2.
	Battery date is 6/96 and cache module rev. is B01.(etch rev. J01,
	s/n:ZG64732172)
	Battery contact of cache module was corrosion and battery liquid was
	leaked.

	TD#2261 issued on March. How is the investigation of battery and cache
	module?

	Best regards.
	Yasuhide Nakamura

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
6657.1	Write back cache batteries	SSDEVO::THOMPSON	Paul Thompson, Colorado Springs	`Wed May 07 1997 17:08`	14
	>>> Problem 1. >>> Battery date is 3/97 and cache module rev. is B01.(etch rev. H01, >>> s/n:ZG54010883) >>> Battery contact of cache module was corrosion and battery liquid was >>> no leaked. >>> I think this cache module is returned to repair center. And then, >>> repair center did eco(B01) and eliminated the corrosion. >>> Why replace the battery contact of cache module? Corroded contacts should always be replaced. There is no reason to chance passing this corrosion to another battery and cache module.
6657.2		TKTVFS::NAKAMURA_Y		`Wed May 07 1997 21:32`	7
	Thank you for your reply. I hope so. How is the problem #2? Best regards. Yasuhide Nakamura
6657.3	i have had two failures.	JOBURG::HARRIS		`Sat May 10 1997 08:58`	3
	See also 6575 Ivan
6657.4	Not the same	SSDEVO::RMCLEAN		`Mon May 12 1997 09:28`	1
	These are very different batteries...
6657.5	More battery info	SSDEVO::THOMPSON	Paul Thompson, Colorado Springs	`Fri May 16 1997 12:26`	22
	Digital has identified a quality problem with the Write Back Cache batteries. Batteries manufactured by our vendor with a date code in calendar year 1996 may fail pre-maturely. The vendor has corrected a manufacturing defect leading to these quality problems. New batteries with dates codes of 1997 do not have this problem and we are recommending that batteries dated 1996 be replaced with fresh lot batteries dated 1997. ******************************************************************* Note: Batteries with the date stamped on a white label were originally manufactured in 1996 and should be considered suspect of having the manufacturing defect. The batteries with the date stamped on the white label on the face of the battery should be replaced with new 1997 date coded batteries. ******************************************************************* Batteries with a manufactured date code in 1997 should be planned for replacement two years from the date of manufacture stamped on the battery. .