Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!andyc
From: andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: HELP IDENTIFYING SEAGATE 296N WITH REV. 7 ROM
Message-ID: <5440050@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 28 Aug 89 16:17:19 GMT
References: <2520@orion.cf.uci.edu>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 30

saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes:

|> The optimum interleave for any computer/controller/disc combination is 
|> not always 1:1!
|
|This is true, but cheating on meanings.  When one says that a disk with 
|built-in controller can be formatted for 1:1 interleave, the normal expectation
|is that this means the controller will be able to deliver consecutive sectors
|to a DMA device without read errors.  In other words, you can read a whole
|track in one revolution if your computer is fast enough.  The ST 296N can't
|do this (Rev 8 ROM).  It has nothing to do with the computer.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm not trying to be argumentative (really!), but I wonder what the reason is
for deciding the computer has nothing to do with it. Is it not possible that
ROM 8 Seagates are somewhat faster than ROM 7 Seagates (in sector-to-sector
delivery) and that the ST can't handle it at 1:1?


Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those solely
of the author, who has no pecuniary interest in the companies mentioned.

Copyright (c) 1989 by Andrew Cassino.  All rights reserved.

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Andy Cassino                                                  %
    % uucp: hplabs!hplsla!andyc  domain: andyc%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com %
    % Hewlett-Packard              Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
    % 8600 Soper Hill Road                   Everett, WA 98205-1298 %
    % (206) 335-2211                                                %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%