kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) (01/11/90)
HiHo, I'm trying to put together a Unix box using BellTech Unix (think it's what Intel is using now) for home and have a HP Vectra 386 16MHz with a Seagate multifunction (ST506) controller. I've heard all sorts of nasty things about the Seagate drives from folks and am wondering how much of it is true, and if the problems are confined to any particular drive types. Since I'll need 80 meg or greater, I'm left with the ST4144, I think. - is anyone using a Seagate under BellTech or SCO Unix? - is anyone using a Seagate under other versions? - is anyone using one under DOS? - is anyone from Seagate listening? How do they hold up reliability-wise? Is seek-time that terrible? Are there other models to go with? Would it be worth it to trash the controller and go ESDI? Are there better drives just around the corner? I can stand shelling out up to $800 if it's worth it... adv -thanks- ance, -k
jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (01/12/90)
kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) writes: >HiHo, > I'm trying to put together a Unix box using BellTech Unix (think >it's what Intel is using now) for home and have a HP Vectra 386 16MHz with >a Seagate multifunction (ST506) controller. I've heard all sorts of nasty >things about the Seagate drives from folks and am wondering how much of it >is true, and if the problems are confined to any particular drive types. >Since I'll need 80 meg or greater, I'm left with the ST4144, I think. > - is anyone using a Seagate under BellTech or SCO Unix? I have three Seagate drive running, two 4096's (80 megs, full height) and one 4051 (40 meg, full height). The 4096's have both been in use for over two years (one three years) with no problems. The 4051 is also about 2-3 years old. I have had no problem with them, although I do have extra fans blowing on them inside the computer (a custom tower case). The Seagates do tend to run hot, and usually will have a bearing failure before an electronics failure. The seek time for all of these are about 29-31 milliseconds on the average. >How do they hold up reliability-wise? Is seek-time that terrible? Are >there other models to go with? Would it be worth it to trash the controller >and go ESDI? Are there better drives just around the corner? I can stand >shelling out up to $800 if it's worth it... It would make sense to go ESDI if you need the storage, although ESDI is still more expensive than 506 MFM. ESDI is usually about twice as fast in transferring information, and the seek times on ESDI are also usually faster. JB -- Jonathan Bayer Intelligent Software Products, Inc. (201) 245-5922 500 Oakwood Ave. jbayer@ispi.COM Roselle Park, NJ 07204
jim@ic2020.UUCP (Jim Carter) (01/12/90)
in article <40970028@hpindda.HP.COM>, kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) says: > Yes, Works great. We are using a tandy 4000 (16mhz 386), with a seagate 40 mb (28ms) drive (st506 interface). I have never had a problem with seagate. > - is anyone using a Seagate under other versions? Yes, at home I use an old 20mb seagate and this has worked fine for about 5 years. > How do they hold up reliability-wise? Is seek-time that terrible? I have not had much trouble with reliability, and the seek time ?? Don't have another system to compare. Although I do think performance is great under xenix if you give your system enough RAM. Xenix will keep disk pages in memory where it can, and then seek time dosn't matter. If you keep the number of -Page swaps- down to a small number, disk performance is less important (although is very important the first time a disk page is accessed). Hope this helps. -- Jim Carter (Sequoia Contact Lens,1355 11th Street,Reedley,CA,93654) {...!csufres!csuf3b!ic2020!jim} 209/638-3939, Fax 209/638-5433
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (01/13/90)
>Item 8061 (0 resps) by kmont at hpindda.HP.COM on Fri 12 Jan 90 09:36 >[Kevin Montgomery] Subject: Seagates under Unix??? (or best pick) >(20 lines) > >HiHo, > I'm trying to put together a Unix box using BellTech Unix (think >it's what Intel is using now) for home and have a HP Vectra 386 16MHz with >a Seagate multifunction (ST506) controller. I've heard all sorts of nasty >things about the Seagate drives from folks and am wondering how much of it >is true, and if the problems are confined to any particular drive types. >Since I'll need 80 meg or greater, I'm left with the ST4144, I think. > > - is anyone using a Seagate under BellTech or SCO Unix? > - is anyone using a Seagate under other versions? > - is anyone using one under DOS? > - is anyone from Seagate listening? Let me put it this way: We've run Seagates (4096/4144R/251/277R1) for about three years now on our public access system. Why? They're cheap, and they work. They DO fail, yes. So do all other fixed disks. We haven't found them to be bad enough that we'll take ours offline -- yet that is... who knows what will happen now that I've said that :-) -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) (01/16/90)
First, thanks for all the responses (both usenet and email)! After hearing the responses (everyone was pretty favorable on Seagate) and reading an excellent article in a PC mag, I think I'm going to lay down the $$$ for a Western Digital SCSI controller with a Connor 104 Meg SCSI disk. MFM is cheaper and I could probably load up on mem so I'd never page/swap, but someday it'll happen and the quicker the access then, the better. Also, ESDI and SCSI seem to be the future with higher transfer rates than a MFM or RLL disk could pull off. Apparently a patch is even in the works to allow multiple controller types (SCSI, ESDI, MFM, RLL) to run under SCO Unix concurrently, which means I can keep my ST506 for the future and still get some cheap storage, while retaining the SCSI for the swap area and quicker access filesystems. So, has anyone used the Connor drives? They're apparently used bigtime in Compaq computers, but I don't hear much about them through dealer channels. The price I was quoted (which sounds pretty good) was from B&W Systems in Gaithersburg, MD for $786 for the Western Digital controller and the 104 Meg Connor drive (+10 for rails and 12 for the SCSI cable). They have SCO Unix up using it and have had no problems- also the Connor drives are supposed to have 40000 hours MTBF (yes, 4.5 YEARS), which is also the MTBU (mean-time-before-upgrade) probably. Anything I should know before laying down a helluvalotta$$$ on these guys? How's the Western Digital controllers? (I'd assume pretty good) Anyone have a Compaq or Connor drive that fritzes out? Any horror stories I should know about? How's the price? thanks again for all the responses!
ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) (01/16/90)
I have had nothing but good experiences with three or four that I know of. 20 MB one in a 9 MHz IBM AT run for four years continusly before it coughed a bad sector. 30MB one has run for three years without a new bad sector. I have an ST-251-1 (40MB) at home that's been running for 1.5 years without a hitch. It's partitioned as DOS/SCO. less than 27ms seek avg. I'm also looking to upgrade the diskspace, so I'd like to know if there are any problems with the Seagate 80MB. -- -->Erik Ch. Ohrnberger -->Permanently Refraining from un-informed opinions
emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) (01/18/90)
In article <40970029@hpindda.HP.COM>, kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) writes: > [deleted] > > So, has anyone used the Connor drives? They're apparently used > bigtime in Compaq computers, but I don't hear much about them through dealer > channels. We used them for a while, a year or two ago, I forget the model number, it would have been around 80-100 Mbytes. We only switched to CDC Wren drives (and later to Quantum Pro drives), on the basis of the OEM pricing deals we were able to get, not the in-system performance. In our (custom) system there was little to choose between them, all were maintaining around 2.5Mbyte/sec average. I didn't see many of the Connors, so I can't compare them for reliability on a fair basis. We tried a few others, which I won't name, they were noticably slower than the above trio. You'll certainly appreciate the speed of those SCSI drives, I think they all had decent on-board caches. BTW, my favourite dealer told me that the WD1007 card was incompatible with the Quantum PRO80S, the only such instance I have ever heard of. I can only say they appeared incompatible to me too. Personally I would have been happy with any of the 3 in my AT, I got the best deal on the Quantum. ATB, Dave E.
asickels@ics.uci.edu (Alan Sickels) (01/19/90)
ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) writes: [stuff deleted] >I'm also looking to upgrade the diskspace, so I'd like to know >if there are any problems with the Seagate 80MB. Do not, repeat _DO NOT_ get a Seagate ST4096! They have a high fail rate and >50% are returned because of it (at least at the store where I work.). >-- >-->Erik Ch. Ohrnberger >-->Permanently Refraining from un-informed opinions Alan Sickels
jinkins@ut-emx.UUCP (Richard Jinkins) (01/19/90)
In article <25B611B6.9729@paris.ics.uci.edu>, asickels@ics.uci.edu (Alan Sickels) writes: > Do not, repeat _DO NOT_ get a Seagate ST4096! They have a high fail > rate and >50% are returned because of it (at least at the store where > I work.). Could you be more specific as to how these drives are failing. I currently am running a 4096 in my 386 running ESIX (Unix 5.3.2) with no problems. This drive has been running almost constantly (except when I am on vacation or there is a thunderstorm) for over a year and a half. The only problem that I have experienced was one time after being off for two weeks the disk did not spin up when the system was first powered on. After power cycling the system it came up immediately. Richard Jinkins jinkins@emx.utexas.edu
kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) (01/24/90)
/ hpindda:comp.sys.ibm.pc / emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) / 5:42 am Jan 18, 1990 / > maintaining around 2.5Mbyte/sec average. I didn't see many of the Connors, not bad performance- what controller were you using? > than the above trio. You'll certainly appreciate the speed of those > SCSI drives, I think they all had decent on-board caches. > BTW, my favourite dealer told me that the WD1007 card was incompatible the latest controller the distributor is pushing is the Chicony 104 SCSI controller (looks like a ST506/412 to the OS). He was previously backing the WD-AT240xo controller, but said the Chicony had supposedly higher reliability and comes with a serial/parallel port. Does anyone know anything about the Chicony controllers? What is the REAL transfer rate from disk--(SCSI)-->controller--(ST506-like interface)-> memory like for these beasts? Does emulating the ST506 really slow things down? As I understand it, it limits the controller to 2 SCSI devices due to this emulation business.... kev
emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) (02/03/90)
In article <40970034@hpindda.HP.COM>, kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) writes: > / hpindda:comp.sys.ibm.pc / emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) / 5:42 am Jan 18, 1990 / > > maintaining around 2.5Mbyte/sec average. I didn't see many of the Connors, > > not bad performance- what controller were you using? Sorry folks, it's a custom design, part of a 68020 processor board for our raster image processor. I mentioned the speed as it demonstrates that the choice of controller is important. The same drive can't give me 1Mb/Sec on my (same clock speed - 20MHz) AT. But it's still very fast, the linker file names are just a blur when I run Turbo C. And of course, I won't need to buy another controller board for the tape streamer. RLL was ok, but SCSI... Dave E.