Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!chinet!saj
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Seagate 296N ROM problems
Summary: You'll rarely notice speed loss with 2:1 interleave
Message-ID: <9501@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 6 Sep 89 03:48:42 GMT
References: <843@gumby.cc.wmich.edu>
Organization: Chinet - Chicago, Ill.
Lines: 22

In article <843@gumby.cc.wmich.edu>, obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu (Mark O'Bryan) writes:
> Here's some more information from my friend who's been discussing
> his ROM 8 problems both with Seagate, and HDI (where he bought 
> the drive).
[some discussion of specifics]
> Sounds like you may be better off getting one of the other drives that'll
> do 1:1 for a few dollars more, if you're interested in that kind of
> performance.  Sure does complicate the equation (again), doesn't it.

I'm nothing if not stubborn.  I have a ST296N drive.  I like it.  I recommend
it to anyone who asks.  The average seek time is great, and that's the 
parameter that most limits disk speed in most practical applications.  At 2:1
interleave you're in the general realm of three quarters of a megabyte per
second throughput (burst).  For my usual 10 - 30 K utility or data file, that
literally means the actual read is done in the blink of an eye.  About the
only way to improve on that in general is with cacheing of the FAT and full
tracks of data.  About the only application I can think of where blasting in
the entire capacity of a mega 4 in 6 seconds might be a limitation is anima-
tion.  Slow seeks are another matter: it doesn't take much fragmentation to get
the heads going all over the disk, and then you'll see the difference between
a fast-seeking 296N and a medium-speed-seeking ST238R.
                                    Steve J.