Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!think!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!tut!korppi!mk59200
From: mk59200@korppi.tut.fi (Kolkka Markku Olavi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Seagate interleave and A2091
Message-ID: <13372@etana.tut.fi>
Date: 28 May 90 10:58:23 GMT
References: <1956@esunix.UUCP> <11742@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1758@tmiuv0.uucp> <23337@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Sender: News@tut.fi
Reply-To: mk59200@korppi.tut.fi (Kolkka Markku Olavi)
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 12

In article <23337@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes:
>I think this is a serious flaw of Commodore not allowing the user to
>specify the interleave.  What about the poor bloke who doesn't have

Actually it is a serious flaw in the Seagate drives. According to
the SCSI standard, if the format command specifies zero interleave,
the drive should select the best interleave factor by itself.
It seems that Seagate's idea of "best" doesn't mean "fastest".

--
	Markku Kolkka
	mk59200@tut.fi