Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pilchuck!del
From: del@Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: RLL Hard Disks
Message-ID: <1025@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM>
Date: 1 Nov 88 01:03:01 GMT
References: <1541@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> <584@tank.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: del@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg)
Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA
Lines: 21

In article <584@tank.uchicago.edu> ads4@tank.uchicago.edu.UUCP (adam david sah) writes:
>RLL IS unreliable now. Now only because the new generation of machines
>has higher clock speeds, which exceed the capability of RLL controllers
>to necessarily encode the data fast enough. One friend of mine had to
>slow down his AT from 12mhz to 6mhz in order to ensure 100% writing!
>The results previously were disastrous. If anyone can confirm this,
>please reply publicly!
>
>-A.Sah'88

This is ridiculous! (No offense to you, Adam) *ALL* 286 machines run
faster than the data encoding to disk. It is the function of the
controller to signal the CPU when it is ready to receive the next
byte. The CPU simply waits until the controller is ready. Your
friend had a poorly designed (or defective?) disk controller that
could not run AT THE BUS INTERFACE LEVEL at the 12 mhz speed. It
didn't happen to be a Western Digital controller, did it?

-- 
del (Erik Lindberg) 
uw-beaver!tikal!pilchuck!del