Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!clarkson!news.clarkson.edu!dibb
From: dibb@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Jim Dibb)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.zenith
Subject: Re: RLL drive controller on 386-16-80
Message-ID: <DIBB.90Oct3153212@suntan.clarkson.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 90 19:32:12 GMT
References: <7071.27076d96@jetson.uh.edu>
Sender: news@news.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Lines: 28
In-Reply-To: bchs1b@jetson.uh.edu's message of 1 Oct 90 16:23:48 CDT
Nntp-Posting-Host: suntan.ece.clarkson.edu

In article <7071.27076d96@jetson.uh.edu> bchs1b@jetson.uh.edu writes:

>Path: clarkson!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!jetson.uh.edu!bchs1b
>From: bchs1b@jetson.uh.edu
>Newsgroups: comp.sys.zenith
>Date: 1 Oct 90 16:23:48 CDT
>Organization: University of Houston
>Lines: 11

>I have a  Zenith 386-16 with drive type 39 (CDC #94155-86, an 80 Mb ST506
>type drive, which I assume is MFM. Does any one know if I can replace the
>controller with an RLL controller and would that give me more disk space
>and faster access. This certainly works with a number of drives but I do
>not know about this specific one. Any comments?

>Mike Benedik
>Biochemical Sciences
>University of Houston
>Benedik@UH.EDU

It might work, but it is certainly NOT!! recommended.  With Seagate drives
an R suffix (ex. ST277-R) denotes an RLL type drive.  MFM drives generally
are manufactured to lower specifications with regards to maximum bit 
density which is approx. 50% higher on RLL (26 vs. 17 sectors per track).

BTW: MFM controllers with RLL drives are OK,a waste of the higher cap.

Jim