Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!virtue!cantva!chem194
From: CHEM194@canterbury.ac.nz (J.DAVIS)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Seagate interleave and A2091
Message-ID: <7777@canterbury.ac.nz>
Date: 31 May 90 09:41:04 GMT
References: <1956@esunix.UUCP> <11742@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1758@tmiuv0.uucp> <23337@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <13372@etana.tut.fi>
Lines: 13

In article <13372@etana.tut.fi>, mk59200@korppi.tut.fi (Kolkka Markku Olavi) writes:
> 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