Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.tech:6261 comp.sys.amiga:37195
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mitel!sce!scs!spl1!gargoyle!tank!ncar!ames!apple!oliveb!amiga!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: ST296N Interleave (was Re: Pal, Jr. HD controller info needed)
Message-ID: <7204@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jul 89 00:35:58 GMT
References: <727@orbit.UUCP> <759@censor.UUCP>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 26

In article <759@censor.UUCP> hugh@censor.UUCP (Hugh D. Gamble) writes:
>> I have tried different interleaves, another 2090 card, and various
>> partition sizes. Nothing has improved the performance. The only
>> unusual thing I've noticed apart from the low data transfer rates is
>> that I could not prep the drive with my controller, I had to use my
>> dealer's 2090A. 

>Are you sure you actually got the interleaves you asked for?
>Which ones did you try?
...
>You probably need an interleave of 4:1 for that drive. 

	The A2090(a) driver, when told by prep to format the whole disk,
uses (I think) 0 for the interleave.  This lets it default to whatever the
drive thinks is best.  Sounds like it's defaulting to too low a number
on the 296N (or maybe the driver is telling it to use interleave 1, but I doubt
it).

	Note that the "Interleave = x" in a mountlist has no effect - this
parameter is not low-level interleave, and currently is ignored (and should
not be set to anything other than 0).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering.  Keeper of AmigaDos.
 {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup
 Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"