grig8348@fredonia.UUCP (LoyEllen Griggs RHTM) (04/15/89)
Well, as far as the RLL and the 225 or 251 goes, it seems the consensus is that
most of the time it can be done, but, it can also damage the disk in a
not-so-minor fashion. As I mentioned before, I can't afford any downtime
now, so I'm sticking with the controller I have now and the 251. Given
what's been said, though, I'll be sure to experiment later.
I had some tech specs, what I was looking for were experiences, and those
I got. Hard to get any place else. Thanks much.
Case history #435465467 closed...:-)
--
_ /Someday my address will include a planet.
__ | | __ \ / LoyEllen
(__)-| |-(__) .. . .. .. . .. .. )<NN fredonia!grig8348@cs.buffalo.edu
|_| / \ {watmath|decvax}sunybcs!fredonia!grig8348keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (04/25/89)
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