Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!rit!tropix!moscom!ur-valhalla!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!sunybcs!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!amdahl!pacbell!att!mcdchg!ddsw1!nvk
From: nvk@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Norman Kohn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: source for WD1007WA2
Message-ID: <3607@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 22 Jul 89 03:51:55 GMT
References: <3072@gaboon.UUCP> <5343@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: nvk@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Norman Kohn)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM, Mundelein, IL
Lines: 19

In article <5343@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes:
>WD has (at least) two versions of their 1007 ESDI controller; one of
>them is only capable of a 2:1 interleave and should be avoided if at
>all possible.  The later version is alleged to be capable of 1:1
>interleave but I haven't evaluated one to verify this.
I've heard that the 1:1 is not yet available, but should be soon.
I've also been told, however, that WD's ESDI card gives 1/35 fewer
sectors than Adaptek's, presumably because it allocates one alternate
sector per track (for bad sectors found at format time) and that this
feature cannot be disabled.  Adaptek's is allegedly better for unix.

On the other hand, if unix 386 only allows a fixed number of bad sectors
(64 in uport) and an entire track is bad somewhere, with large
hard drives the table could fill up pretty quickly.

-- 
Norman Kohn   		| ...ddsw1!nvk!norman
Chicago, Il.		| days/ans svc: (312) 650-6840
			| eves: (312) 373-0564