Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!hubcap!rchampe
From: rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Richard Champeaux)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Hard Drive/Controller
Summary: HardFrame seems to work well with slow starting drives
Keywords: SuQuest HardFrame A2091
Message-ID: <7179@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 89 07:46:45 GMT
References: <1989Nov21.224423.3829@athena.mit.edu> <18611@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 24

In article <18611@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:
> In article <1989Nov21.224423.3829@athena.mit.edu> rlcarr@space.mit.edu (Rich Carreiro) writes:
> >I have narrowed my selection to either a HardFrame or an A2091 for a
> >controller, and will probably get a SyQuest rmovable hard drive.
> 
> >3) I've been told that the SyQuest takes 10-15 seconds to spin up.
> >   Will this cause timeout problems with the HardFrame?  The A2091??
> >   [note: I called MicroBotics about this - the person who answered was
> >    clueless as to the answer]
> 
> Someone here has a 2090 and a drive that doesn't spin up fast enough.
> If it doesn't boot, C-A-A a second time gets it going fine.  Presumably,
> the 2091 won't be any less friendly.  If you need it to boot unnattended
> after a power failure or the like, more testing may be necessary.
> 

   I have a HardFrame and a Segate 296N.  The 296N takes 20 - 25 seconds 
before it acknowledges any requests.  At least the access LED provided by
the HardFrame just barely filckers durring the time the 296N is going
through it's self test.  The HardFrame, however, has no problem with this
long delay.  My system boots without any problem from a cold start.  The
only difference is that it takes 20 - 25 seconds longer.

Rich Champeaux  (rchampe@hubcap.clemson.edu)