Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!murdoch!turing!jon
From: jon@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Jon Gefaell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Does ESIX still not support RLL?
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.185145.4520@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 26 Apr 91 18:51:45 GMT
References: <3080@cirrusl.UUCP> <513@pyrite.nj.pyramid.com> <3087@cirrusl.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 22

In article <3087@cirrusl.UUCP> Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM> writes:
>
>The following is directed not towards Bill, but towards many Usenet
>users who assume that RLL is some sort of disk interface standard.
>It's not!  It's just a way of putting bit patterns on the disk
>surface.  And it wasn't invented by Adaptec either.  RLL means "run
>length limited" -- a way of recording bits such that you never have
>more than m consecutive raw ones or n consecutive raw zeroes.  Tape
>drives have used it for years (but they call it GCR or group code
>recording).  In the microcomputer world, the Apple II used it on floppy
>disks way back when.

for that matter, ST412/506 interface, MFM drives utilize RLL encoding.
The diferences are in the 'types'(number of zeros allowed?)
of RLL encoding used. 

Is this correct? 
--
____
\  /      
 \/ The pleasure of satisfying a savage instinct, undomesticated by the ego,    is uncomparably much more intense than one of satisfying a tamed instinct.      The reason is becoming the enemy that prevents us from a lot of possibilities   of pleasure. 		
		S. Freud