Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!lll-lcc!mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!decwrl!decvax!wanginst!ulowell!ci-dandelion!necntc!adelie!mirror!.pc!inmet!milos
From: milos@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: RLL controler
Message-ID: <127500003@inmet>
Date: Fri, 6-Feb-87 09:40:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.127500003
Posted: Fri Feb  6 09:40:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Feb-87 02:20:30 EST
References: <1083@ethos.UUCP>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:ethos.UUCP:-108300:inmet:127500003:000:798
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!milos    Feb  6 09:40:00 1987


>>I thought the Seagate ST238 started out life as a 38MB (unformatted)
>>drive that, after normal formatting, could be expected to give
>>you 30MB usable.  What is special about the RLL controller giving
>>Scott 30MB?  I think I have missed something here, but I'm not
>>sure what!

My understanding is as follows:

	The ST238 is *actually* an ST225 which has undergone a more
	stringent certification process, resulting in fewer bad
	sectors. A standard (MLM?) controller yields a 20MB capacity,
	while the RLL controllers can pack 30MB in the same
	physical area, assuming that the number of bad sectors is
	small enough to allow this. Thus, in this case, it is the
	controller (rather than the drive itself) which determines
	the storage capacity.

					Bob Milosavljevic
					ihnp4!inmet!milos