Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!viusys!uxui!unislc!harem!wes From: wes@harem.clydeunix.com (Wes Peters) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Does ESIX still not support RLL? Summary: Needs to know the disk controller intimately. Message-ID: <227@harem.clydeunix.com> Date: 1 May 91 21:53:51 GMT References: <1991Apr21.155642.1586@shambala.uucp> <3087@cirrusl.UUCP> Organization: Raxco, Inc., Orem, UT Lines: 30 In article <3087@cirrusl.UUCP>, dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > Perhaps Usenet posters ought to be saying "ESIX requires no more than > 17 sectors per track" (if that is true, which it probably is not, > because the disk off which I run ESIX has more than 17 sectors per > track) instead of blaming it on the recording format. > > Better, still, say something like "ESIX doesn't support my disk > controller, and it happens to use RLL recording, but the recording > format many or many not have something to do with it." In reality, the question has nothing to do with RLL or MFM encoding, it has to do with whether or not the OS supports a particular type of controller. The OS needs to know a lot of information about a disk controller, including where it's registers are located in the memory map, what interrupt it is using, formats of the Command/Status Register, what DMA channel if applicable, etc. Esix publishes a list of hardware they are compatible with; get a copy of the list. If your disk controller isn't on there, find out if any that ARE on the list work with your drives and buy a new disk controller, or find out if another V/386 supports your disk controller and buy it instead (this will probably be more expensive than replacing the disk controller). Wes Peters -- #include The worst day sailing My opinions, your screen. is much better than Raxco had nothing to do with this! the best day at work. Wes Peters: wes@harem.clydeunix.com ...!sun!unislc!harem!wes