Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: RLL Hard Disks
Message-ID: <12515@steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 3 Nov 88 19:43:30 GMT
References: <1541@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> <584@tank.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 25

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!

Wrong. Some controllers do not run at very high bus speeds. As a general
rule I regard any controller which won't run at least 8MHz bus to be a
poor design, and any clone which runs the bus faster than 8MHz (not the
CPU, the bus) to be suspect with many cards.

If the clone is running the bus at full speed, there are a LOT of cards
which don't work that fast. In any case I have used Adaptec and PerStor
controllers in my system, a 16MHz 386 with 8MHz bus. Both have worked
fine. I see no problems with RLL, although some RLL controllers might
have a problem. There are a lot of MFM controllers which don't run above
8MHz bus, too.

-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me