[email protected] (Pommier, Rex) writes: > While I don't know when the 3390s last rolled off the assembly line, I > believe they were all SLEDs. After that came the short-lived > 9340/9345 subsystem which had a different track length than the 3390 > (built on 5 1/4 inch drives), then the RAMAC II devices which might be > what you're thinking of. These things emulated the 3990/3390 SLEDs on > (I believe) 3 1/2 inch SCSI drives, packed 4 in a drawer in either a > RAID1 or RAID5 configuration. > > I don't know how they compared to the 3390s performance-wise, but we > replaced a bunch of 3380-Es with a combination of the 9340s and RAMAC > IIs and they ran circles around the 3380s, not to mention taking up a > LOT less floor space! :-)
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#82 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#83 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#84 Costs of core this ibm-main post (from last summer) says last ckd (3390) rolled off 1993 (towards the bottom, I even weight in) https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bit.listserv.ibm-main/zAUn9kAkykU which would go along with this http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3390.html note however, 3380 & 3390 were increasingly becoming fixed "cell" in large part because of the error correcting technology ... while still striving to simulate ckd ... before switching over to using straight industry standard fixed-block disks ... with higher level ckd simulation (i.e. 3375/3370) -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
