Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!motcsd!xdos!doug
From: doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: A2091 & CDC Wren III
Message-ID: <671@xdos.UUCP>
Date: 24 Feb 90 15:28:27 GMT
References: <2032.AA2032@atronx>
Reply-To: doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Organization: Hunter Systems, Mountain View CA (Silicon Valley)
Lines: 23

In article <2032.AA2032@atronx> rwm@atronx.UUCP (Russell McOrmond) writes:
:
:  I have a friend that has a DC WREN II which is a 155M 16.5ms access drive. This
:drive was hooked up to a 2090 for a few years, a 2090a for a couple of months,
:and is now working on a 2091 controller.
:
: [ drive is very slow w/ 1K blocks, very fast w/ huge blocks ]
:
:  Now, I have spoken to other people with the A2091, and they have mentioned
:RADICALLY higher ratings with the same drive moved from the 2090a - is this
:something that could be specific to the CDC drive? Any thoughts would be
:appreciated.

The Wrens are pretty fast, well made drives; I doubt very much that a 40K
transfer rate has anything to do with the design of the Wren.

But it could easily be that he's using an inappropriate interleave factor.
E.g. a 4:1 interleave factor might show exactly this kind of performance
difference. Reformat with 1:1 and retest. And also with 2:1, to compare.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt		{pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug
Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow		Professional Wildeyed Visionary