parsnips@dasys1.UUCP (David Parsons) (10/15/89)
I have a very nice Connor SCSI drive that I would like to use with my
brand-new AT clone... I bought a Seagate ST01 host adaptor, but I'll be
twisted if I can figure out how to get it to work.
Does anybody out there have any experience with interfacing SCSI's to
AT's? I've used the same drive with two Apple's, a Mac, and an Amiga,
this is my first failure, argh...
David Parsons
..!cmcl2!{ccnysci,cucard,hombre}!dasys1!parsnips
--
David Parsons
Big Electric Cat Public UNIX
..!cmcl2!{ccnysci,cucard,hombre}!dasys1!parsnipsschuster@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Schuster) (10/17/89)
In article <10939@dasys1.UUCP> parsnips@dasys1.UUCP (David Parsons) writes: >I have a very nice Connor SCSI drive that I would like to use with my >brand-new AT clone... I bought a Seagate ST01 host adaptor, but I'll be >twisted if I can figure out how to get it to work. > >Does anybody out there have any experience with interfacing SCSI's to >AT's? I've used the same drive with two Apple's, a Mac, and an Amiga, >this is my first failure, argh... Aha! Congratulations. You have just discovered the big secret of SCSI and PC's: There is NO STANDARD. Everyone uses their own bus interface, and each one is different. Furthermore, Seagate's interface is the MOST DIFFERENT. Reportedly is will ONLY work on Seagate SCSI drives. The best SCSI adaptors for the PC's right now, arguably, are those made by Future Domain. Problem is, few suppliers are willing to sell the cards alone. Have seen hints that IBM is about to release a SCSI card based on the Adaptec SCSI chipset. If that's true, then for better or worse a true standard might emerge. Fingers crossed! -- l\ /l' _ Mike Schuster ...!dasys1!schuster l \/ lll/(_ Big Electric Cat schuster@dasys1.UUCP CIS:70346,1745 l lll\(_ New York, NY USA BIX,DELPHI,GEnie:MSCHUSTER
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (10/20/89)
In article <10946@dasys1.UUCP> schuster@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Schuster) writes: >The best SCSI adaptors for the PC's right now, arguably, are those made >by Future Domain. Problem is, few suppliers are willing to sell the cards >alone. Our evaluation of the Future Domain SCSI controller showed it to be a mediocre performer - something like a 2:1 interleave MFM would do. I understand one of the advantages of the FD product is that software that expects the ST-506 register interface finds it in the FD board, but don't take my word for it. We use the Adaptec 1542A. It's the one many 386AT UNIX operating systems seem to look for (if they look at all). kEITHe
km@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Ken Mitchum) (10/20/89)
>... There is NO STANDARD. Everyone uses their own bus interface, and >each one is different. Furthermore, Seagate's interface is the MOST >DIFFERENT. Reportedly is will ONLY work on Seagate SCSI drives. > The ST01 will work with non-Seagate drives, but you may have to bypass the onboard ROM which makes it look like an XT/AT drive, and you will likely have to write your own driver. An ST01 driver for Microport Unix that works with non-Seagate drives was posted several months ago. It appears that the Seagate-specificity concerns some assumptions made in the ROM routines. There are apparantly some shortcuts taken in the ST01's electrical interface, but these are not the major problem, from what I hear. >The best SCSI adaptors for the PC's right now, arguably, are those made >by Future Domain. Problem is, few suppliers are willing to sell the cards >alone. The ST01 is reportedly made for Seagate by Future Domain. The onboard ROM carries a Future Domain copyright. So, they may make the best host adapters, but they also make the ST01. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Mitchum MD KY3B Decision Systems Labs University of Pittsburgh km@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu
mattioli@TOOK.DEC.COM (John R. Mattioli) (11/02/89)
All of this talk about the FD scsi controler is all well and good and I
myself wish I'd asked questions about a month ago. Unfortunately, I assumed
that a company wouldn't sell me a "system" that didn't work well.
I now find that I have a scsi controler and drive (st02 controler and
80meg seagate drive). I ran norton si on it (under dos) and the disk index (di)
number it returned was 0.6! Someone PLEASE tell me I can do better by tweeking
my controler or my drive somehow! Why spend all this money to get performence
like 28msec access time when the disk really isn't all that great after all?
What is the best thing for those of us with an st02 (or st01) to do?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Mattioli
Most improved skier (american blind skiers association 1989)
and humble to!
(DEC E-NET) TOOK::MATTIOLI
(UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!TOOK.dec.com!MATTIOLI
(ARPA) MATTIOLI@TOOK.dec.com
MATTIOLI%TOOK.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com
(US MAIL) John Mattioli
550 King St. LKG2-2/BB9
Littleton, Ma. 01460scott@csusac.csus.edu (L. Scott Emmons) (11/02/89)
In article <5862@shlump.nac.dec.com> mattioli@TOOK.DEC.COM (John R. Mattioli) writes: > > I now find that I have a scsi controler and drive (st02 controler and >80meg seagate drive). I ran norton si on it (under dos) and the disk index (di) >number it returned was 0.6! Someone PLEASE tell me I can do better by tweeking I am thoroughly convinced that norton si's disk index is perfectly worthless. It gave my ST-238 a 1.0 rating with a 3:1 interleave. When I changed my interleave to 2:1 si gave it a 0.6 rating. However, there was a noticable _increase_ in speed not a decrease (50% according to spinrite, and about the same according to my sensory perception.) -- L. Scott Emmons uucp: ...[!ucbvax]!ucdavis!csusac!scott
allred@ut-emx.UUCP (Kevin L. Allred) (11/03/89)
In article <5862@shlump.nac.dec.com>, mattioli@TOOK.DEC.COM (John R. Mattioli) writes: > I now find that I have a scsi controler and drive (st02 controler and > 80meg seagate drive). I ran norton si on it (under dos) and the disk index (di) > number it returned was 0.6! Someone PLEASE tell me I can do better by tweeking > my controler or my drive somehow! Why spend all this money to get performence > like 28msec access time when the disk really isn't all that great after all? > > What is the best thing for those of us with an st02 (or st01) to do? You're not in as bad a shape as you think. What you need to do is backup all the information you have put on you hard disk, and do a low level format using Diskmanager in manual mode. (/m switch I believe). Select the format menu. If you are running on a 286 or 386 of at least 8+ Mhz you should find the optimal format to be a 2:1 interleve. Repartition and test the speed with coretest or spintest (don't trust Norton Si). If the speed is 400 to 500 KBPS, go ahead and restore your files. If the speed much lower, try a low level format with 3:1 interleve, and so on until you hit the best combo. Don't be overly conserned about the time to reformat. My experience was that at 2:1 interleve, a complete reformat took about 10 minutes. Backup, on the otherhand, takes time. 1:1 interleve used to be possible, but Seagate screwed that up for the Mac's sake (1:1 is too fast for a Mac+). Your drive is probably formatted now for 1:1 interleve, which is really screwing transfers up. On my system the transfer rate went from about 50 KBPS to 500 KBPS when I went from 1:1 interleve to 2:1 interleve. Just so you won't feel bad, 2:1 interleve on an ST296N is as fast as 1:1 interleve on an ST4096 (Don't forget, the ST296N/ST02 is also about $150 cheaper than the ST4096/WD1006 etc.). This has to do with the number of sectors per track (34 vs 17). A more expencive host addaptor isn't going to help you any, the problem is the BIOS on the ST296N. Following this proceedure, you should see much better performance. Now a word to the wise... Memory is cheap again; so adding 1MB of RAM to your system to dedicate to disk caching or RAM disk is going to be much cheaper, and give you much more performance for you money, than a more expensive disk and controller. If you get a high cache hit rate, the actual speed of the media is not very important. -- Kevin Allred allred@emx.cc.utexas.edu allred@ut-emx.UUCP
mattioli@TOOK.DEC.COM (John R. Mattioli) (11/09/89)
In article <20406@ut-emx.UUCP>, allred@ut-emx.UUCP (Kevin L. Allred) writes... > >You're not in as bad a shape as you think. What you need to do is >backup all the information you have put on you hard disk, and do a low >level format using Diskmanager in manual mode. (/m switch I believe). >Select the format menu. If you are running on a 286 or 386 of at least >8+ Mhz you should find the optimal format to be a 2:1 interleve. > Well, I've got a bit of a problem with this. You see, my vendor (Micro Express) did a low level format of my drive before they sent it to me. I'm sure they did this to test the drive. Unfortunately, they didn't send me a floppy "with Segate's software on it. They said they'd send it to me, but that was nearly two weeks ago. I still haven't received it. Is there someone out there who could mail it to me? I know that kinda goes against the copyright, but the software's useless without the hardware so I suspect that's not such a big deal. After all, I was supposed to get the software in the first place. Please help me out? I need to evaluate the difference in speed quickly while I still have a money-back guarantee. >Now a word to the wise... > >Memory is cheap again; so adding 1MB of RAM to your system to >dedicate to disk caching or RAM disk is going to be much cheaper, and >give you much more performance for you money, than a more expensive >disk and controller. If you get a high cache hit rate, the actual >speed of the media is not very important. > I agree as far as dos goes, but I want to run unix. I assume I can't do anything like this under unix. ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Mattioli Most improved skier (american blind skiers association 1989) and humble to! (DEC E-NET) TOOK::MATTIOLI (UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!TOOK.dec.com!MATTIOLI (ARPA) MATTIOLI@TOOK.dec.com MATTIOLI%TOOK.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (US MAIL) John Mattioli 550 King St. LKG2-2/BB9 Littleton, Ma. 01460
mattioli@TOOK.DEC.COM (John R. Mattioli) (11/10/89)
feel like I'm about to solve this very frustrating problem. I just need a
little more advice and, since I'm getting so much via the network, I thought I'd
stick with what's worked so well thus far.
Since I paid $675 for my st296n (80meg scsi drive) and st02 (scsi host
adaptor) and since I found the drive in the computer shopper for about $450 I've
decided to return both drive and controller. I will get a $675 credit for that.
Then, I'll order my st296n as cheap as possible.
I just had a salesman suggest that I buy a Future Domain tmc860 (scsi
adapter) for $295. I've heard that the Future Domain scsi hardware is great but
is this price reasonable? Will it work well with the Seagate drive? Should I
consider getting a different drive? I'd like to keep the price about the same
if possible ($450-$500).
For those of you not familiar with th Future Domain controller (I wasn't
until earlier today) I'm told that it can control 7 scsi drives, it comes with 7
diskettes and a 500 page manual. The diskettes and manual cover everything from
diagnostics to setup software under dos and sco xenix, to novell setup stuff
etc. I'm wondering if this is much more controller then I'll ever need.
Also, as the Future Domain board doesn't control floppies, this salesman
wants to sell me a floppy controller for $79. It's a generic and, to my way of
thinking, way over priced. Any suggestions on an inexpensive floppy controller?
Finally, I have a tape backup system from CMS. This unit hooks up to
the floppy controller as drive b. If you have any experience with this tape
drive (as in what controllers it works with) I'd appreciate it. I'd like my
tape drive to work with whatever floppy controller I buy. For those of you
thinking of going scsi I suggest you stay well away from the Seagate st01/st02
controllers. One additional reason for this is because the st02 may not work
with your CMS tape drive.
Thanks again for all your help people and thanks in advance for whatever
is on its way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Mattioli
Most improved skier (american blind skiers association 1989)
and humble to!
(DEC E-NET) TOOK::MATTIOLI
(UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!TOOK.dec.com!MATTIOLI
(ARPA) MATTIOLI@TOOK.dec.com
MATTIOLI%TOOK.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com
(US MAIL) John Mattioli
550 King St. LKG2-2/BB9
Littleton, Ma. 01460larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) (11/27/89)
From article <6046@shlump.nac.dec.com>, by mattioli@TOOK.DEC.COM (John R. Mattioli): [some deleted] > Since I paid $675 for my st296n (80meg scsi drive) and st02 (scsi host > adaptor) and since I found the drive in the computer shopper for about $450 I've > decided to return both drive and controller. I will get a $675 credit for that. > Then, I'll order my st296n as cheap as possible. > > I just had a salesman suggest that I buy a Future Domain tmc860 (scsi > adapter) for $295. I've heard that the Future Domain scsi hardware is great but > is this price reasonable? Will it work well with the Seagate drive? Should I > consider getting a different drive? I'd like to keep the price about the same > if possible ($450-$500). [some deleted] > Also, as the Future Domain board doesn't control floppies, this salesman > wants to sell me a floppy controller for $79. It's a generic and, to my way of > thinking, way over priced. Any suggestions on an inexpensive floppy controller? > > Finally, I have a tape backup system from CMS. This unit hooks up to > the floppy controller as drive b. If you have any experience with this tape > drive (as in what controllers it works with) I'd appreciate it. I'd like my > tape drive to work with whatever floppy controller I buy. For those of you > thinking of going scsi I suggest you stay well away from the Seagate st01/st02 > controllers. One additional reason for this is because the st02 may not work > with your CMS tape drive. > John, I recently purchased a Adaptec AHA-1542 SCSI controller and couldn't be happier with it. Some of its features are: The controller is Adaptecs top of the line SCSI controller. It will run on Buses pushed to 12MZ (mine is). Features a 1:1 interleave capability. Supports both a slave and master mode. Supports up to 6MB per second transfer rates (according to literature). Has both an internal and external SCSI cable connection. The 1542 has one feature over the 1540. the 1542 also will support 2 floppy disk drives. I have my 1542 connected up to a 155MB CDC SCSI hard disk, a 1.44MB 3.5 inch Chinon floppy disk drive and a 1.2MB Teac floppy disk drive. The controller doesn't seem to have any problems with either of the floppys and supports all different types of denisities. Also it is FAST FAST FAST! With the CDC disk my early benchmarks show a speed of about 960KBS. The burst mode is even faster then that. On a different note, I too was looking at the ST296N drive. Its cheap and affordable. In talking to the dealership that sold me most of my components (but not my disk) the dealer told me that they were having a problem with the ST296N drives. He said that they seemed ok if you only ran them a few hours each day, but only seemed to last a month in constant operation. In a posting to usenet inquiring about this, I received many mail replies, mostly from Amiga owners, who also had problems with the ST296N. By the way, I have SCO Xenix and DOS 3.3 on my machine, and they seem to run fine. I have tried Interactive, but have had problems. By the way, I paid $300.00 for the AHA1542. It came with a manual but no disks. I have not found a need for any disks to support the controller. Cables may be extra. I am not affiliated with Adaptec, other then as a satisified customer. Hope this helps... -- Larry Taborek ..!uunet!grebyn!macom1!larry Centel Federal Systems larry@macom1.UUCP 11400 Commerce Park Drive Reston, VA 22091-1506 My views do not reflect those of Centel 703-758-7000