Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!plx!slvblc!dick
From: dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: RLL on a ST-225
Message-ID: <304@slvblc.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jan 88 23:19:15 GMT
References: <2736@cup.portal.com>
Sender: uupc@slvblc.UUCP
Reply-To: dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan)
Organization: SLV Systems Group, Ben Lomond, CA
Lines: 33
Summary: It's usually okay, but not always
Disclaimer: none


In article <2736@cup.portal.com> Tim_Sam_Carson@cup.portal.com writes:
>Has anyone ever tried using a RLL controller on a Seagate ST-225 ?
>If so, did it work?  If it did, how much did you gain?

I had a pair of ST-225's in an XT and I replaced their old controller
with an Adaptec 2070A RLL controller.  One of the ST-225's is working
flawlessly to this day (24-hours per day for over a year), while
the other one was finally replaced a few months ago with an ST-238.

The ST-225 that was finally replaced became very sensitive to transient
read errors until it finally reached the point where those errors could
no longer be tolerated.  (I gave it to a friend to try back in non-RLL
service, but I have not heard back as to the success or failure of that
venture.)

I have heard about many people who have placed ST-225's into RLL
service, and the vast majority of them have been successful (the
GEnie IBM Round Table has an entire topic on this subject).  With
RLL controllers available for around $100 (the 2070A, anyway), it
makes sense to at least try it with your -225's.

As far as gain is concerned, a chkdsk on my remaining RLL'ed ST-225
shows 31,191,040 bytes.

Good luck!

Dick

--
Dick Flanagan, W6OLD                        GEnie: FLANAGAN
UUCP: ...!sun!plx!slvblc!dick               Voice: 1 408 336-3481
USPO: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005      LORAN: N37 05.5 W122 05.2
--