Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!keithe
From: keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Final RLL and ST251 Post
Message-ID: <4996@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 24 Apr 89 17:20:07 GMT
References: <1516@fredonia.UUCP> <592@octopus.UUCP>
Reply-To: keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 16

In article <592@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
<
<Last I checked, Perstor *guaranteed* that their ARLL (even more dense storage
<than RLL) controller would work with a long list of drives...
<...
<The only downside to Perstor is that
<their controllers cost more than normal RLL ones...
<

...and they can only achieve a 2:1 interleave rate.  (This was tested in a 25
MHz 386AT so we're prety sure it's the controller, not the host system.)  We
decided to stick with (Adaptec) RLL with 1:1 interleave and "only" a 50%
increase in speed and capacity (instead of the 90% increase in capacity the
ARLL provides).

kEITHe