MSU Listserv


MSUNAG Archives

MSUNAG Archives


MSUNAG@LIST.MSU.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV at MSU

LISTSERV at MSU

MSUNAG Home

MSUNAG Home

MSUNAG  March 2013

MSUNAG March 2013

Subject:

Re: Old tape drives at MSU

From:

Dennis Boone <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Dennis Boone <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:49:03 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (63 lines)

 > If an old tape reel from the 1980s has a label on it that reads,
 > "Memorex Cubic 6250 BPI SuperReel" and a typed tag saying "MSU
 > Permanent Tap ID Number B 577" does that mean it was created at the
 > Computer Lab, as it was then called?

 > A former faculty member is interested in having a data recovery
 > company try to recover files from it.

John,

The Memorex label indicates it was certified by them for 6250bpi data,
but that doesn't mean, of course, that data was actually written to it
at that density.  My guess is the recording is 9-track, not 7-track,
based on the specified era, and probably > 800bpi density for the same
reason.

The VRN doesn't look like one from the MSUCL IBM mainframe system that
was installed in the '86-'87 time frame, unless the label was misread
and actually says "8577".  I didn't do much of anything with tapes on
the Cyber system which preceeded it, so can't speak to those numbers.
There were other systems around for which the dates in my head are
fuzzier -- a VAX or two, a Convex supercomputer, possibly other things.
Again, I can't speak to tape numbering for those systems.

While 9-track tape drives were available which wrote at 3200bpi, it's a
fairly uncommon format.  Chances are pretty good that the tape was
written at either 1600bpi or 6250bpi.

I've fairly trivially read 9-track tapes from the early- and mid-80s
without any significant trouble, even tapes which were stored in a
Michigan attic for many years.  They're remarkably durable.

The principal issue which may arise for media of that era is that the
binder used to stick the oxide to the backing tends to absorb moisture
and become sticky.  This glue/oxide mixture can then "shed" off the tape
onto the heads, which impedes smooth flow of the tape across the heads,
and in fact even stick to the heads and not move at all.  Depending on
the drive, the tape could snap.  Regardless, data is recorded on that
oxide, so you don't want to scrape it off.  Some media manufacturers'
products do this worse than others, and a lot depends on the conditions
in which the tape has been stored.  The usual solution to this "sticky
shed" problem is to bake the tapes gently to dry them, then carefully
and immediately read them once.  The professionals will have a procedure
for this that optimizes their success rate, but I've been able to win
with stunts as simple as placing the tape in a food dehydrator for 24
hours.

It shouldn't be difficult to find a media conversion or data recovery
outfit that can do this, even in Australia.

The harder part of the process may be the data archaeology -- sifting
through the bits read from the tape to extract the end-user data from
whatever wrappers were applied by the tool used to write the tape.  If
it's a PFDUMP tape written on the Cyber, Mark Riordan wrote an extractor
tool.  For DEC/VAX or IBM formats, things are probably easier, since
those operating systems are still commercial products.

I have a tape imaging lecture that goes "Don't use unix 'dd' to image
tapes.  It throws away tape block size information."  If a recovery
company will be handing you a tape image, make sure they use a format
that retains that information.

De

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2023
June 2023
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
December 2021
January 2019
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager