iuster@laicy.i88.isc.com (Dan F. Iuster) (09/14/89)
I am considering buying an Adaptec RLL controller to use on a
Seagate 4096 - 80Mb drive. I understand that the 4096's are not
rated for RLL, nevertheless I was told that it works 90% of the
time. The reason for doing this is to get the additional 30% or
so increase in capacity for almost free.
Has anybody on the net done this ? Any experieces, good or bad,
or any more hearsay ?
--
Dan Iuster
..!{amdahl,att,masscomp,nucsrl,sco,sun}!laidbak!iuster
(312) 505-9100 x322
Interactive Systems, Corp.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (09/15/89)
In article <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com>, iuster@laicy.i88.isc.com (Dan F. Iuster) writes: > I am considering buying an Adaptec RLL controller to use on a > Seagate 4096 - 80Mb drive. I understand that the 4096's are not > rated for RLL, nevertheless I was told that it works 90% of the > time. The reason for doing this is to get the additional 30% or > so increase in capacity for almost free. A local friend has had good luck running the Seagate 4096 drives with the Perstor 180 ARRL controller - which yields around 145 megabytes per drive. I have heard of others running the drives with an Adaptec 2372 1:1 controller - but I would personally feel better using Micropolis or Miniscribe drives. -- Larry Snyder SCO Xenix 2.3.2 '386 uucp: iuvax!ndcheg!ndmath!nstar!larry Computone Intelliport AT8 The Northern Star Usenet Distribution Site HST / PEP / V.22 Notre Dame, Indiana USA Home of the fighting Irish!
rrosen@wpi.wpi.edu (Robert L Rosenblatt) (09/15/89)
In article <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> iuster@i88.isc.com (Dan F. Iuster) writes: >I am considering buying an Adaptec RLL controller to use on a >Seagate 4096 - 80Mb drive. I understand that the 4096's are not >rated for RLL, nevertheless I was told that it works 90% of the >time. The reason for doing this is to get the additional 30% or >so increase in capacity for almost free. > >Has anybody on the net done this ? Any experieces, good or bad, >or any more hearsay ? > >-- >Dan Iuster >..!{amdahl,att,masscomp,nucsrl,sco,sun}!laidbak!iuster >(312) 505-9100 x322 >Interactive Systems, Corp. Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: RLL controllers & MFM disks Summary: Expires: References: <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> Sender: Reply-To: rrosen@wpi.wpi.edu (Robert L Rosenblatt) Followup-To: Distribution: na Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA. USA Keywords: In article <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> iuster@i88.isc.com (Dan F. Iuster) writes: >I am considering buying an Adaptec RLL controller to use on a >Seagate 4096 - 80Mb drive. I understand that the 4096's are not >rated for RLL, nevertheless I was told that it works 90% of the >time. The reason for doing this is to get the additional 30% or >so increase in capacity for almost free. > >Has anybody on the net done this ? Any experieces, good or bad, >or any more hearsay ? > >-- >Dan Iuster >..!{amdahl,att,masscomp,nucsrl,sco,sun}!laidbak!iuster >(312) 505-9100 x322 >Interactive Systems, Corp. First thing that I should warn you about is that Seagate tech. has a very strict policy about the warranty which comes with there drives. If A) you format a mfm drive with a rll controller it is null and void, no more poof, if the hard disk dies seagate does not want to know your name. Same is true in reverse. The reason they do this is that they have not rated the 4096 for rll coding. It 'should' *work* if it doesn't work then the hard-disk dies and your up a creak without a paddle. The 4096 is an 80 meg drive that should be enough for a normal computer person. Even if it does work, the hard-disk will fail more frequently because it was not rll encoded. Meaning you chances of lost ing data is larger. Also I must warn you about the Adaptec controller, newer revisions have on board disk-caching (rev d & better) which can mess up certain programs, like spinrite. Second I have had problems running Windows /386 with an older adaptec on a 65 meg Microscience drive. MS says its adaptecs fault. Overall i would say its not worth the effort, use a mfm controller. -Rob Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: RLL controllers & MFM disks Summary: Expires: References: <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> Sender: Reply-To: rrosen@wpi.wpi.edu (Robert L Rosenblatt) Followup-To: Distribution: na Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA. USA Keywords: In article <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> iuster@i88.isc.com (Dan F. Iuster) writes: >I am considering buying an Adaptec RLL controller to use on a >Seagate 4096 - 80Mb drive. I understand that the 4096's are not >rated for RLL, nevertheless I was told that it works 90% of the >time. The reason for doing this is to get the additional 30% or >so increase in capacity for almost free. > >Has anybody on the net done this ? Any experieces, good or bad, >or any more hearsay ? > >-- >Dan Iuster >..!{amdahl,att,masscomp,nucsrl,sco,sun}!laidbak!iuster >(312) 505-9100 x322 >Interactive Systems, Corp.
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (09/15/89)
In article <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> iuster@i88.isc.com (Dan
F. Iuster) writes: >I am considering buying an Adaptec RLL controller
to use on a >Seagate 4096 - 80Mb drive. I understand that the 4096's
are not >rated for RLL, nevertheless I was told that it works 90% of
the >time. I just got my new 386-clone with a WD1006V-SRZ and a
Seagate 4114 hard disk (I understand this is a 4096 certified for
RLL). The people that sold me this system tried ,at first, to set it
up with an Adaptec ACB-2372 controller. They told me this combination
did NOT work. I took their word as gospel and switched to the WD
controller.
My current set up (WD controller + 4114) works fine under DOS. The real
test for me is when (pretty soon I hope) I install 386/ix on this
machine.perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison) (09/16/89)
In article <4044@wpi.wpi.edu> rrosen@wpi.wpi.edu (Robert L Rosenblatt) writes: > In article <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> iuster@i88.isc.com > (Dan F. Iuster) writes: > > the 4096's are not rated for RLL, nevertheless I was told that it works > > 90% of the time. > First thing that I should warn you about is that Seagate tech. has > a very strict policy about the warranty which comes with there drives. > If you format a mfm drive with a rll controller it is null and void, no > more poof, if the hard disk dies seagate does not want to know your name. > Same is true in reverse. > The reason they do this is that they have not rated the 4096 for rll coding. > It 'should' *work* if it doesn't work then the hard-disk dies and your up > a creak without a paddle ... Even if it does work, the hard-disk will fail > more frequently ... you chances of losting data is larger. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This certainly seems reasonable. I can see why Seagate wouldn't want to warrant the _performance_ of a non-rll drive with an rll controller, but if it didn't work what's to prevent re- formatting and using it with an mfm controller? Surely the attempt at rll isn't going to physically damage anything, is it? I can even less understand their objection to using an rll-rated drive with an mfm controller. Can anyone explain this? Seagate, are you listening?
simon@ms.uky.edu (G. Simon Gales) (09/16/89)
In article <629@ccssrv.UUCP> perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison) writes: >In article <4044@wpi.wpi.edu> rrosen@wpi.wpi.edu (Robert L Rosenblatt) writes: > >> In article <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> iuster@i88.isc.com >> (Dan F. Iuster) writes: >> > the 4096's are not rated for RLL, nevertheless I was told that it works >> > 90% of the time. > >> First thing that I should warn you about is that Seagate tech. has >> a very strict policy about the warranty which comes with there drives. Those of you who have Seagate RLL drives: is there a 'RLL-Certified' sticker on the drive or something? The st4096 we ordered was labeled st4144r - the RLL version of the 4096. This st4144r (aka st4096) had no RLL certification sticker, but it WAS labeled as a st4144r. And the vendor insisted it was a st4096. Hmmmmm. The same vendor sells st4144r drives for much more $$$ than the st4096. -- Simon Gales@The University of Kentucky simon@ms.uky.edu | 'Fate... protects fools, little children, simon@UKMA.BITNET | and ships named Enterprise.' {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!simon | - Riker, ST:TNG
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (09/16/89)
> This st4144r (aka st4096) had no RLL certification sticker, but it WAS > labeled as a st4144r. And the vendor insisted it was a st4096. Hmmmmm. > The same vendor sells st4144r drives for much more $$$ than the st4096. I did have a 277R - which is the RLL version of a 251. To the best of my knowledge - a 4144 is a 4096 that has been certified for RLL use. In the past Seagate has also added an "R" to the model number, ie: 277R for RLL use. -- Larry Snyder SCO Xenix 2.3.2 '386 uucp: iuvax!ndcheg!ndmath!nstar!larry The Northern Star Usenet Distribution Site HST / PEP / V.22 Notre Dame, Indiana USA Home of the fighting Irish!
ferris@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Richard Ferris) (09/16/89)
Richard T. Ferris ferris@eniac.seas.upenn.edu University of Pennsylvania
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (09/17/89)
I have a Seagate dealer manual at work. And it is 100% true that Seagate
will NOT warranty an MFM drive that has been formatted RLL. This is also
in the installation guide for Seagate drives if you buy a drive directly
from Seagate. As for why it wouldn't work, my guess is probably increases
the mean between failure time of the drive even if it's RLL formatted once
and reformatted MFM. You're making a drive do something it's not meant to
do. Sure it might work, but you're taking a chance. I believe the chance
is somewhat similiar to formatting a 720K 3.5" disk 1.44 Mb. I've also heard
a rumor that Seagate uses a higher quality media in their RLL drives.
This may or may not be true, but I have seen ST225's killed with RLL
formatting. If you want an RLL'able drive from Seagate, buy one of their
RLL'able drives. The results with RLL formatting a non-RLL certified drive
could surprisingly work against you. If you want to throw away your
money, give it to me, I'll take care of the drive properly. :)
But whatever the scoop is with RLL'ing an MFM drive, we all know this,
especially where I work (even though we deal only SCSI drives). Don't do it,
it isn't worth it. It's Seagate's warranty policy. Hard drives aren't worth
throwing the warranty out the door to get 50% more storage.
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Flames: /dev/null (on my Minix partition)
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* ARPA : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil
* INET : jca@pnet01.cts.com
* UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to
* speak in the best interests of the company (yet).
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/19/89)
In article <1989Sep15.074504.6420@agate.berkeley.edu>, ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: | My current set up (WD controller + 4114) works fine under DOS. The real | test for me is when (pretty soon I hope) I install 386/ix on this | machine. I replaced an Adaptek with a WD for use under UNIX, and the performance was about 3 times faster. DOS performance was about the same. I had a Perstor PS180, but the early models (hard disk only) didn't work with UNIX. The WD should work with 386/ix or Xenix. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (09/19/89)
In article <379@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1989Sep15.074504.6420@agate.berkeley.edu>, ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > >| My current set up (WD controller + 4114) works fine under DOS. The real >| test for me is when (pretty soon I hope) I install 386/ix on this >| machine. > > I replaced an Adaptek with a WD for use under UNIX, and the >performance was about 3 times faster. DOS performance was about the >same. I had a Perstor PS180, but the early models (hard disk only) >didn't work with UNIX. The WD should work with 386/ix or Xenix. >-- Yes, it does work. I just went through the 386/ix (1.0.6) intallation. I can't compare the speed to any other options, but it 'feels' fast.
wsd@cbnews.ATT.COM (wayne.s.dinsmore) (09/19/89)
In article <629@ccssrv.UUCP> perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison) writes: -I can see why Seagate wouldn't want to warrant the _performance_ of a non-rll -drive with an rll controller, but if it didn't work what's to prevent re- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -formatting and using it with an mfm controller? Surely the attempt at rll ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -isn't going to physically damage anything, is it? - -I can even less understand their objection to using an rll-rated drive with -an mfm controller. - -Can anyone explain this? Seagate, are you listening? I have just the answer because of what I went through one weekend. Basically it boils down to this: Rarely will a drive thats been formatted by an RLL controller succumb to MFM formatting. I started with a 32MEG RLL drive on a hard card with an 8-bit controller. I bought an AT clone and decided to use the nice new WD 1:1 interleave MFM controller. Low level format succeeds, fdisk succeeds, format succeeds with a few complaints about bad sectors. Next I loaded some software, with a few spurious track seeks, and then it happened. The boot sector got trashed. No problem. Boot off the floppy, run 'sys c:' and reboot without the floppy. Ahh, that's better. Well after several rounds of this I thought the 1:1 interleave was just too much for this drive. So I tried the whole re-format process with several different interleaves and always the same results; trashed files and boot sectors. A month later I am intrigued by a WD 16 bit 1:1 RLL hard-disk-only controller. Should I try it? What the heck. It's only $145. Well after changing the HD address on the WD-MFM controller (making the RLL the primary controller) I had a screaming 32MEG hard disk. I haven't had a single error yet, not one. If you're still confused or not sure about MFM and RLL formmating then just remember this: If you format a hard disk with RLL, the MFM you try on it later will never be quite the same. TVOE - The Voice Of Experience -- __________________________________________________________________ | Wayne S. Dinsmore Make it in Massachusetts, | AT&T Bell Labs att!cbnews!wsd Spend it in New Hampshire. | Room MV-1X54 (508)960-6113