Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!udel!gatech!uflorida!codas!killer!tness1!petro!swrinde!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!stride!tahoe!adonis
From: adonis@tahoe.unr.edu (Derrick Hamner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Can IBM-AT disk controller run optimally with no sector interleave?
Message-ID: <1063@tahoe.unr.edu>
Date: 11 Mar 88 06:24:08 GMT
References: <103@ativax.UUCP>
Reply-To: adonis@tahoe.unr.edu.UUCP (Derrick Hamner)
Organization: University of Nevada - Reno
Lines: 23
Keywords: disk,performance

In article <103@ativax.UUCP> john@ativax.UUCP (John Behrs) writes:
>Although the IBM-AT disk controller runs with a sector interleave of 1,
>it misses consecutive sectors.  Sector interleave of 2 or 3 is optimal,
>even on 16MHZ clones.  Does anyone know the reason for this and if it
>is possible to make an IBM-AT run optimally with no sector interleave?
>-- 
>John Behrs @ AEON Technologies		boulder!fesk!ativax!john
>2888 Bluff Street Suite 227
>Boulder CO 80301
>(303) 499-7304

	The interleave is dependant upon how fast the controller can pass
data, and how fast the computer can receive data.  The optimal interleave
will probably be different for almost every different type of computer and
controller combination.  On my AST Premuim/286 (10 Mhz. - 0 wait states) I
find that an interleave of 2 is best.  As far as I know, the only way to
possibly reduce the interleave is to get a faster controller (or a faster
computer :-).

-- 

   A computer program does what you tell it to do,  |   Derrick Hamner      
   not what you want it to do.                      |   adonis@tahoe.unr.edu