Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:7201 unix-pc.general:3493
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!thad
From: thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: 1024 CYL versus WD2010
Message-ID: <21044@cup.portal.com>
Date: 5 Aug 89 07:49:12 GMT
References: <254@gnosys.UUCP> <1581@mtunb.ATT.COM> <820@bagend.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 26

Jan Isley comments:

"	I needed to test a Microscience 1090 so I put in a 2010 chip, ran the 
	1090 for a few days, then put the 4096 back in.  Guess what?  No more
	hard disk problems.  Hmmm....  I put the original 1010 back in ...
	problems came back.  I put in a different 1010 ... still disk problems.
	Reformat the drive ... still problems.  2010 back in, problems went away.
	Reformat the 4096 ... bad blocks went away.  That was six months ago.
	*NO* more problems on this disk.

	Beats me.  You figure it out.
"

This is my observation, too, using the WD2010 chip.  Been testing one of them
very heavily the past 7 days with 9 different disks (all <= 8 heads and <= 1024
cylinders); disks that were previously "bad" are now operating as if they all
had perfect media.

Though ALL of WD's literature states (paraphrased) the WD2010 is 100% software
compatible with the WD1010, it appears the onboard ECC (Error Correction and
Control) circuitry (which is NOT present on the WD1010) is doing a lot of good
voodoo and other "magic."  In other words, the WD2010 is a good replacement
for the WD1010 even if one doesn't wish to install a humongous HD possessing
more than 1024 cylinders.

Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]