Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!ames!oliveb!enchant
From: enchant@oliveb.UUCP (Dan Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Hard Disk Format
Message-ID: <2510@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Aug-87 15:57:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.2510
Posted: Tue Aug  4 15:57:39 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Aug-87 04:45:09 EDT
References: <613@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 22
Keywords: PCSG 286 / Seagate ST 225
Summary: interleave

In article <613@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>, singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) writes:
> 
>    Recently, messages have been posted saying 1:4 works well
>    with the ST-225 when used on an 8086 machine.  Any suggestions
>    for use with my 8Mhz 286 card?

From my experience, the biggest mistake that someone can make is to try to
format a disk with an interleave that is too small.  In this case, many
revolutions are wasted waiting for target sectors.  I have also discovered
that, especially in dos applications, that as long as the interleave is not
too small for the system speed, the interleave really doesn't make that much
difference.  For example, if 3:1 is too small, then changing to 4:1 or higher
will solve the problem.  You will probably have a hard time seeing a difference
between 4:1, 5:1, 6:1 etc.

My suggestion would be to try 4:1 (or even 5:1) and see if there is a 
drastic improvement.  If not, then 3:1 is probably the best you can do.
-- 
Here comes the supernatural anesthetist
If he wants you to snuff it
All he has to do is puff it
He's such a fine dancer