Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!IRO.UMontreal.CA!matrox!uvm-gen!kira!news From: pegram@kira.UUCP (Robert B. Pegram) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: hard drives Message-ID: <1990Dec17.222240.11764@uvm.edu> Date: 17 Dec 90 22:22:40 GMT References: <7062@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM> Sender: news@uvm.edu Organization: University of Vermont, Department of Computer Science Lines: 50 Raymond-Protection: enabled From article <7062@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM>, by boblu@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Robert Luneski) quotes me from my article: <1990Dec14.172830.14752@uvm.edu> >>I'm interested, (I'd like to run my 296N with 1-1 interleave 8-) >>but I have several questions: Then replies: > You do not want to run a Seagate 296N at 1-1 because the disk transfer rate > is less than 90 kb/sec at that interleave. Yes I do! At home I have old postings about this. Someone from Berkley Microsystems claimed that Seagate tests all 277Ns and 296Ns with a 1 to 1 interleave, and listen to you (figuratively) slack jawed when you complain that you can't run them that fast. The problem, I am given to believe, is in the host adaptors we use, only the BMS 200 really meets SCSI standards currently, or so I hear (yeah, I know, you could say that the 2XXN series is barely SCSI too 8-). BMS *currently* advertises with a line saying something like: > Formatting it at 2-1 interleave raises the transfer rate to over 430 kb/sec. (or lowers it to that if you're running a BMS 200 8-). Deletions.... > ____ ____ > /\/\/\ Bob Luneski /\/\/ I'll dig up the posting I mentioned (thought I had it here too) if anyone's interested. I'll also dig up Berkley's phone and address so you can check with them directly. Check it out - I might be right - and wouldn't all the 2XXN owners be happy then! Well, only unhappy about the DMA port overloading that occurs when the BMS 200 is off, that someone stated in a posting today 8-(. I hope that's been fixed. your 'umble servant, ;-) Bob Pegram pegram@griffin.uvm.edu or ...!uvm-gen!pegram