CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET (Jonathan Crone) (07/01/89)
has anyone considered a class action lawsuit against seagate??? I got off the phone with one of their Tech Support supervisors who told me out and out that their drives had NO PROBLEM!!! which means that all of us are a bunch of liars... I would appreciate everyone who has had difficulties with Seagate products to please email me to any of the following addresses complete descriptions of their difficulties, the rememedy (including the manufacturer of the new drive they bought after getting pissed at seagate.) and if you wish, include a snail mail address... as i intend to examine the possibilities of consumer protection agency actions... (or legal action.) thank you very much... JpC -------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan P. Crone CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET cronejp@mcl.UUCP Amiga-L@uregina1.bitnet List moderator. Heisenberg might have been here...
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (07/04/89)
In article <8907020047.AA15716@lilac.berkeley.edu> CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET (Jonathan Crone) writes: >has anyone considered a class action lawsuit against seagate??? > >I got off the phone with one of their Tech Support supervisors >who told me out and out that their drives had NO PROBLEM!!! > >which means that all of us are a bunch of liars... That's not nice.... and inaccurate to boot. >I would appreciate everyone who has had difficulties with Seagate >products to please email me to any of the following addresses >complete descriptions of their difficulties, the rememedy >(including the manufacturer of the new drive they bought after getting >pissed at seagate.) We've been using and selling Seagate drives for over three years. Here's our experiences with them: ST225 - Junk. But then again, what do you want for $200 or so? If you don't want cheap, don't buy these. The biggest problem with these is that they don't autopark, which leads to damage on the working surface of the media when they are moved about. ST251/251N/277R - SOME models have problems. Older drives will get "stiction"; there are also a few newer ones around which do this. All of the ones which we have had do this were replaced IN WARRANTY. The replacements have not failed -- not a SINGLE one. We sell these in nearly every system we ship -- and they are good drives for us. The only other problem I have had with these is with one unit which was physically abused -- it headcrashed. That wasn't Seagate's fault. I have one unit, out of some 150 shipped in the last year, which is dead now in the field. It is being replaced IN WARRANTY this week. It has the "stictionitis". Our distributor hasn't given me any heartache about getting it changed out -- just an RMA number. ST4038/4051 - Garbage. These were unreliable, often exhibiting temperature related failure modes. If you kept them cool they were fine. After a year or so Seagate finally figured out what was wrong with them (a bad part) and gave us enough info to fix the lot of 'em. Those which we bothered to refurbish are now working fine. ST4096/ST4144R - A good unit. We've had no undue problems with these. One failure out of 20-30 units sold and in service over the last two years. All of the Seagate drives are CHEAP. All meet their MTBFs in my experience, as long as you don't run them too hot (it's not nice to cook your electronic gear!) Keep them cool, and they will run for a long time. Let the case temperature go over 40-45 degrees Celcius, and you'll be buying another one -- fast. I run mine cool, and spec systems (including the FAN) so they run cool as well. Kept at a reasonable operating temperature they live a nice long life. There are better drives around, but they all cost more. For the money we'll buy Seagate again. If you want the best bite the bullet and buy a CDC Wren. But get ready to mortgage your house when you do it. FYI, there are FIVE of these monsters within reach right now, all running. The count looks something like this: 3 ST251 - One running RLL which it's not rated for, but nonetheless works flawlessly! 1 ST4096 - Again, running RLL (and not rated for it) 1 ST4144R - RLL as well, and rated for it All but the 4144 are in excess of a year old (the 4144 was installed this afternoon; we needed more space on the Unix system). They all work fine and have since we purchased them. Again -- keep those drives COOL. 10 degrees of additional heat takes FIFTY PERCENT off your operating lifetime. The temperature of the drive case should never be too warm to _comfortably_ put your hand on. If you feel the least bit uncomfortable doing this (ie: temperature over about 90-100 degrees F; 35-40 Celcius) it's too darn hot! Get a bigger or more powerful fan. We follow that rule here, and our nice cheap Seagate drives live a long life. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) (07/05/89)
In article <3671@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > We've been using and selling Seagate drives for over three years. Here's > our experiences with them: > ST225 - Junk. But then again, what do you want for $200 or so? If you > ST251/251N/277R - SOME models have problems. Older drives will get > ST4038/4051 - Garbage. These were unreliable, often exhibiting > ST4096/ST4144R - A good unit. We've had no undue problems with these. Fine, but then, he describes the machines within reach: > 3 ST251 - One running RLL which it's not rated for, but > nonetheless works flawlessly! > 1 ST4096 - Again, running RLL (and not rated for it) > 1 ST4144R - RLL as well, and rated for it Boy, howdy, you just shot your credibility in my eyes to nothing with that. Anyone who runs things out of spec---non-RLL drives RLL, 10MHz parts at 15MHz, etc., is just asking for trouble. And I will never go to such a person for advice. I will never buy a Seagate drive. I have seen many fail. I know for a fact my data is worth more than a cheap drive. I paid $1000 for a CDC Wren and $750 for a Quantum 80S---both excellent drives, neither of which I have heard of or had any problems with. Other people, more financially strapped than I, may take their chances. But talk to someone who does not run things out of spec. Talk to someone who respects engineering, who understands why things are spec'ed at all. (On the other hand, doesn't Seagate own CDC now?) -tom
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (07/05/89)
>>I got off the phone with one of their Tech Support supervisors >>who told me out and out that their drives had NO PROBLEM!!! Good, I have been selling an installing Seagate drive in multi-user systems for a long time now (2 years now) and have had problems in only 1-2% of them.. (certainly not an undue amount). >>which means that all of us are a bunch of liars... Oh , I get it -- it's a nationwide plot. The things don't work and everyone is still buying them. >>I would appreciate everyone who has had difficulties with Seagate >>products to please email me to any of the following addresses >>complete descriptions of their difficulties, the rememedy I assume you are not interested in the number of drives that had NO PROBLEMS?? I have several of these drives in reach as well, all of them being run at 190% of their rated capacity for a long time. Most run continuously for 1 year or more (24 hours, 7 days, 15-acesses an hour all the time, many more during "work") WITH >NO< FAILURES> **************************************************************************** Something is basically wrong with anyone who uses a disclaimer when they talk "My thoughts claim no responsibility for my body" tron1@tronsbox.UUCP Sysop, the Penthouse ]I[ BBS (201)759-8450 (201)759-8568
jmpiazza@sunybcs.uucp (Joseph M. Piazza) (07/05/89)
In article <[503.2]un.amiga;1@tronsbox.UUCP> tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) writes: > >I have several of these drives in reach as well, all of them being run at >190% of their rated capacity for a long time. Most run continuously for 1 >year or more (24 hours, 7 days, 15-acesses an hour all the time, many more >during "work") WITH >NO< FAILURES> One moment modem-breath. :-) :-) :-) One problem that strikes many Seagates (like mine) happens when you turn it off and try to turn it on again: the disk doesn't spin-up. So if your drive has this problem and you've had it running an entire year, your warranty just expired! :-) Fortunately, these drive can be revived by giving the spindle a quarter turn. Of course in my system this means completely unmounting the drive to get at the spindle at the bottom. And unfortunately for Jonathan this isn't the problem his drive has. As for my aforementioned drive, it was still under warranty and is in the process of being replaced. Unfortunately, that process has been going on for over five weeks (the replacement is on back-order). My only hope is that they have fixed the manufacturing/testing problem. Flip side, joe piazza --- In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around. CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!jmpiazza GEnie:jmpiazza BITNET: jmpiazza@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: jmpiazza@cs.Buffalo.edu >tron1@tronsbox.UUCP
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (07/06/89)
In article <10403@polya.Stanford.EDU> rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) writes: >In article <3671@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >> We've been using and selling Seagate drives for over three years. Here's >> our experiences with them: >> ST225 - Junk. But then again, what do you want for $200 or so? If you >> ST251/251N/277R - SOME models have problems. Older drives will get >> ST4038/4051 - Garbage. These were unreliable, often exhibiting >> ST4096/ST4144R - A good unit. We've had no undue problems with these. > >Fine, but then, he describes the machines within reach: > >> 3 ST251 - One running RLL which it's not rated for, but >> nonetheless works flawlessly! >> 1 ST4096 - Again, running RLL (and not rated for it) >> 1 ST4144R - RLL as well, and rated for it > >Boy, howdy, you just shot your credibility in my eyes to nothing with that. >Anyone who runs things out of spec---non-RLL drives RLL, 10MHz parts at >15MHz, etc., is just asking for trouble. And I will never go to such a >person for advice. Oh? That's your loss. We NEVER (repeat - NEVER) sell drives like this to customers. We DO use them like this in-house -- it's my own version of a torture test. I know darn well they may decide to lose format at any time, but note that they NEVER HAVE. Not in two and a half years. Our USENET partition is on one of those non-rated disks -- if it loses format, we lose spooled news. Big stinking deal. A few megs of unread news; or even your article that I just quoted! I'm worried sick :-) The RATED drives have important things on them. We may play with fire, but we're NOT stupid, and know what the fire can burn. If you knew as much about RLL and MFM encoding as you should, you would know that there is no way to damage a drive by running it RLL. The raw data rate does not change. No additional heat is produced. Only the encoding FORMAT is changed. Have you been listening to the Seagate babble ("RLL on a non-rated disk voids the warranty....") -- a marketing noise designed to sell disk drives at a higher price and profit margin? If you knew anything about Seagate drives, you would know that there is NO DIFFERENCE, PHYSICALLY OR ELECTRICALLY, between a RLL ST4144 and a Non-Rll ST4096. Or a ST251 and ST277R. Same drive, same electronics (logic board included). The only difference is in certification. If you get one that works RLL but isn't certified, it usually means that they needed more 4096's than 4144's, and didn't bother to CHECK the one you bought for conformance to the higher RLL specs. "Window margin" is the only, repeat, only spec which affects data recovery from an RLL device. If it's low enough (low enough jitter in the returned signal that is) then it will work. If not, it won't. Seagate is kind enough to print that spec on their final test sheet. We have, by using a nice analog disk test machine, come up with some ballpark figures which to date have predicted with 95%+ accuracy which drives will and won't work at the higher encoding density. I won't run a 16 Mhz CPU at 20 Mhz here or elsewhere - that generates more internal heat than the chip was designed for, and may shorten it's life. We don't sell MFM drives with RLL controllers to customers either - I don't like issuing RMA numbers, or having to explain why the disk lost it's format. But running a MFM drive at RLL density can't shorten it's life. It is RISK FREE when done in-house if you make nice daily backups and only put that which you are willing to lose on the disk. Besides, we have a few extra drives laying around -- why buy one new when you can pull one marked "engineering use only" off the shelf and run it until it craps out, at which time you repeat that process? Please explain why we have never lost data due to this practice if we don't know what we're doing...... >I will never buy a Seagate drive. I have seen many fail. I know for a fact >my data is worth more than a cheap drive. I paid $1000 for a CDC Wren and >$750 for a Quantum 80S---both excellent drives, neither of which I have >heard of or had any problems with. Other people, more financially strapped >than I, may take their chances. But talk to someone who does not run things >out of spec. Talk to someone who respects engineering, who understands why >things are spec'ed at all. That's ok. Last month I watched the DEC field service people pull a Quantum out of a Microvax (DEC private-labels Quantums as DEC RD53's at 500% markup) for replacement due to it deciding to eat the spindle bearings -- the drive was 9 months old. Impressive sounds were coming from that cabinet prior to it's death.... CDC has some nice products, but they are EXPENSIVE. Now that they have been bought by Seagate it remains to be seen what happens to the price AND quality of their products. (CDC's "MFM" units will, 99% of the time, run RLL as well without a hitch. They have excellent quality control. :-) I do respect engineering, but I also respect marketing. Marketing and production requirements drive Seagate, not necessarially engineering. Seagate simply doesn't test all the drives for RLL, and they only make ONE drive for both purposes. Talk to someone who knows what the difference is between RLL & MFM encoding; someone who knows how to determine whether or not what they are doing is going to work. Or, Gods forbid, try someone who knows what the manufacturer produces (dissecting crashed drives & checking part numbers against one another is informative). Talking to someone who blows smoke and spouts specs is counter-productive. Of course, if you never make backups you deserve what you get. In that case you better buy the best drive you can find -- and then pray to several Gods to protect you from Mr. & Mrs. Murphy. Guaranteed you'll need it. Finally, a repeat from my last post on this subject -- keep that disk drive COOL and you'll continue to use the same drive for a nice long time. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
ltf@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US (Lance Franklin) (07/06/89)
In article <[503.2]un.amiga;1@tronsbox.UUCP> tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) writes: >I have several of these drives in reach as well, all of them being run at >190% of their rated capacity for a long time. Most run continuously for 1 >year or more (24 hours, 7 days, 15-acesses an hour all the time, many more >during "work") WITH >NO< FAILURES> Well, I have a friend that has a BBS system with 4 ST251 drives...all went bad about the same time (approx. 1 year after purchase) and all with the same symptoms...sticking upon startup. All required the same fix, replacement of media. If I might make a suggestion, perhaps the reason you have not had any problems with your drives is the fact that you never shut them down. The cases I've seen with Seagate's failing mostly seem to have common factors. 1 year normal service (i.e. daily use, powered down daily) usually seems to be the break-down threshold...after that, you're living on borrowed time (unless you're lucky enough to have a drive with the good media). Lance -- +-------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+ | Lance T Franklin | | I never said that! It must be some kind of a | | ltf@killer.DALLAS.TX.US | | forgery...I gotta change that password again. | +-------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/09/89)
Re: Seagate drives ...
WHY do you think Apple dropped Seagate as a supplier? Surely Apple, with its
propensity for buying low and selling high, would have preferred sticking with
Seagate IF there were no problems.
My own experience with Seagate is extremely negative. EVERY single one of
the ST251 drives (10 of them) failed with the "stiction" problem after 15
months of service ... out of warranty. When the drives are spinning, they
work OK, but power them down and ... fooey.
I have a collection of several HUNDRED email responses to my prior postings,
every single one of which reports problems with Seagate drives.
Many have read my postings in which I described conversations with Mary Gomez,
the QA Manager of Seagate in Scotts Valley, and with other Seagate personnel.
In *MY* opinion, these people simply don't know their own products OR they're
afraid to admit the manufacturing defects.
In conversations with people who REPAIR hard drives here in Silicon Valley
(3 companies), they ALL report a tremendous number of problems with Seagate
drives (and NOT because there are more Seagate drives "out there" than all
others combined). The vast majority of the problems concern stiction, which
results from errors during manufacturing ... specifically, the application of
too much lubricant on the drive platters; this causes a severe meniscus at
the R/W head when in park position, preventing the stepper from moving the
heads upon a power-up ... and a failsafe in the main spindle driver prevents
rotation if the heads don't leave park position. It has also been consistently
stated by the same companies (independent of each other) that the problem does
NOT arise until after about 12 months' service (AFTER the warranty expires; this
may be coincidence, but ... :-)
I've SEEN the problem under microscope (at the HD repair companies) and the
symptom is known in the trade as "white worms" because that's what the surface
of the platters looks like when too much lubricant was applied during
manufacture.
The ONLY solution (per ALL the HD repair companies) is to re-platter the
drives (which they do for prices ranging from $60-$150 depending on the
drive). This re-plattering, of course, uses platters that are NOT over-
lubricated.
The REASON for the overlubrication is due to (as related to me by people at
the HD repair companies):
1) Seagate specs require the platters to have "one wipe" of a cloth impregnated
with <an unspellable chemical>,
2) the assembly line workers don't "load" the rag with enough <chemical> which
causes an uneven application of the <chemical>
3) the platter fails optical inspection because the <chemical> was applied
unevenly
4) the platter gets rejected and the assembly line worker doesn't meet quota
5) to avoid platter rejection, the assembly line worker NOW wipes the platter
3, 4 or even 5 times with the rag. The <chemical> is now evenly distributed
on the platter and the surface "looks good" in the optical inspection, and
the assembly line worker meets quota
6) after the drive is in use for awhile, the excess <chemical> is pushed to the
INSIDE and the OUTSIDE of the platter. Anything beyond cylinder 0 is no
problem because the heads won't go there; BUT, the crap that was pushed
inwards (beyond, say, cylinder 820 in an ST251) is NOW is the area where
the heads are parked. When you shut your drive down, the heads now are
sloshing in that <chemical> and the meniscus essentially GLUES the heads in
place, preventing the stepper from moving them from PARK when power is
re-applied. Remember, the heads are as super-polished as are the platters;
the excess fluid makes for almost PERFECT bonding between the head and
platter when the heads rest at park.
The above scenario is NOT speculation; it is FACT. If you want the name of
the <chemical>, call (for example) California Disk Drive Repair Company,
Rotating Memory Systems, or <another company whose business card is at my
office and not here at home>. The AMOUNT of excess lubricant we're talking
about here is EXTREMELY small. The correct application is only one or two
molecules thick. Each additional wipe deposits an additional molecular
layer (or two), and it takes months before the excess pushed by the heads to
the PARK area starts to cause real problems ("stiction").
Seagate manufacturing consistently has the problem with their plated media
drives in both the 5-1/4" and 3-1/2" format; a LOT of reports are now coming
in stating startup problems with the ST138/ST157 drives. You can find these
reports in many of the Usenet newsgroups, at dealers' shops, at user group
meetings, etc. Even the ST-4096 is plagued with the stiction problem as
stated many times by the Customer Service Rep of JDR MicroElectronics at
FAUG meetings in answer to questions from the floor.
If you can get the drive spinning, it will operate fine (as my own tests have
proven.) But many people simply don't have the knowledge or the ability to
remove their drives, diddle the stepper shaft, reinsert the drive and power
up.
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]jmpiazza@sunybcs.uucp (Joseph M. Piazza) (07/09/89)
In article <20260@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >... specifically, the application of >too much lubricant on the drive platters; this causes a severe meniscus at >the R/W head when in park position, preventing the stepper from moving the >heads upon a power-up ... and a failsafe in the main spindle driver prevents >rotation if the heads don't leave park position. It has also been consistently >stated by the same companies (independent of each other) that the problem does >NOT arise until after about 12 months' service (AFTER the warranty expires; >this may be coincidence, but ... :-) In an ealier posting you mentioned this occuring after three months -- almost to the day the problem showed on my 138N. Could you clarify? >6) after the drive is in use for awhile, the excess <chemical> is pushed to the > INSIDE and the OUTSIDE of the platter. Anything beyond cylinder 0 is no > problem because the heads won't go there; BUT, the crap that was pushed > inwards (beyond, say, cylinder 820 in an ST251) is NOW is the area where > the heads are parked. When you shut your drive down, the heads now are > sloshing in that <chemical> and the meniscus essentially GLUES the heads in > place, preventing the stepper from moving them from PARK when power is > re-applied. Wow, this is truely amazing. I thought I was mixed-up with respect to how many cylinders are avaible on the 138N. When I first got my drive it formated correctly to 615. A month or so later it would only format it to 605 (the number I currently have in my Montlist). At the time I figured it must have been a lapse of my memory. Now, ... >The above scenario is NOT speculation; it is FACT. I believe you; the supporting evidence just keeps on getting stronger. Flip side, joe piazza --- "Where's my other sock?" A. Einstein CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!jmpiazza GEnie: jmpiazza BITNET: jmpiazza@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: jmpiazza@cs.Buffalo.edu >Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) (07/10/89)
In article <20260@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: |Re: Seagate drives ... |My own experience with Seagate is extremely negative. EVERY single one of |the ST251 drives (10 of them) failed with the "stiction" problem after 15 |months of service ... out of warranty. When the drives are spinning, they |work OK, but power them down and ... fooey. |Seagate manufacturing consistently has the problem with their plated media |drives in both the 5-1/4" and 3-1/2" format; a LOT of reports are now coming |in stating startup problems with the ST138/ST157 drives. You can find these |reports in many of the Usenet newsgroups, at dealers' shops, at user group |meetings, etc. Even the ST-4096 is plagued with the stiction problem as |stated many times by the Customer Service Rep of JDR MicroElectronics at |FAUG meetings in answer to questions from the floor. |If you can get the drive spinning, it will operate fine (as my own tests have |proven.) But many people simply don't have the knowledge or the ability to |remove their drives, diddle the stepper shaft, reinsert the drive and power |up. Thanks Thad, for a very informative article. I have two Seagates in my 2000, a ST138R and a ST125. The 138R is older (1-2 years) and has been trouble free. The ST125 is newer, and has stuck once, after I parked the heads and shut down for a weekend. It hasn't stuck since, because I don't shut it down except when absolutely necessary, and then only for a short time, and I don't park the heads (finally, an advantage to not having automatic head-parking :-). I used to run a Microscience HH725A with severe sticking problems, I bought it as-is for $50. from one of the shops you mentioned (yes, they told me what I was getting). It ran well, but got more and more difficult to start as time went on. I finally replaced it with the Seagate ST125. I am not mad at the people who sold me the as-is HH725A, but I am mad at Seagate for selling new 125s with this problem. Since I do not have the time to pursue the matter further with Seagate, my response to the situation is never to buy another Seagate product. | |Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ] -- Phil Nelson at (but not speaking for) OnTyme:NSC.P/Nelson Tymnet, McDonnell Douglas Network Systems Company Voice:408-922-7508 UUCP:{pyramid|ames}oliveb!tymix!pnelson LRV:Component Station If IBM is '1984', Apple is 'Brave New World'
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/11/89)
Joseph M. Piazza asks: " In an ealier posting you mentioned this occuring after three months -- almost to the day the problem showed on my 138N. Could you clarify? " (The above in reference to the elapsed period before one's Seagate drive starts getting finicky about spinning its main spindle). *MY* experience with the Seagate drives has been for > 12 months to elapse before the stiction problem revealed itself. Others encounter it earlier. This could be a function of whether one's drive had 2, 3, 4 or 5 wipes! :-) I also tend to keep my drives powered up for year(s) at a time between shutdowns because I operate all my computers on UPS systems; someone who powers ON/OFF daily is more likely to experience the problem earlier. As I stated in email response to someone else this weekend, the heads on the drive are acting like windshield wipers on a car's windshield, squeegeeing the material off to the sides. Material pushed towards the center of the platter is the material that causes trouble when the heads are PARKed, per: >6) after the drive is in use for awhile, the excess <chemical> is pushed to the > INSIDE and the OUTSIDE of the platter. Anything beyond cylinder 0 is no > problem because the heads won't go there; BUT, the crap that was pushed > inwards (beyond, say, cylinder 820 in an ST251) is NOW is the area where > the heads are parked. When you shut your drive down, the heads now are > sloshing in that <chemical> and the meniscus essentially GLUES the heads in > place, preventing the stepper from moving them from PARK when power is > re-applied. Joseph continues: " Wow, this is truely amazing. I thought I was mixed-up with respect to how many cylinders are avaible on the 138N. When I first got my drive it formated correctly to 615. A month or so later it would only format it to 605 (the number I currently have in my Montlist). At the time I figured it must have been a lapse of my memory. Now, ... " The funny thing about embedded SCSI drives is that one is NOT supposed to know or care HOW many heads or cylinders physically are in the drive. The operative word is simply "sectors". From the ST138N manual (yeah, "Know thy enemy"! :-) : When ones asks for 512-byte sectors (contrasted with 1024 or 256), the ST138N is guaranteed to have 62,933 sectors. Period. This is the ONLY datum one needs to operate this drive on a SCSI bus. You ask for sector 0, it gives it to you. You ask for sector 62,932, it gives it to you. You ask for sector 62,933 and you'll probably get beans. SCSI data organization, as far as the host is concerned, is simply block-relative. If you want to consider the physical organization of the ST138N, you will find that it has 155 sectors per cylinder (huh? yeah, that's what the manual says in several places), 26 sectors per track, and 1 diagnostic R/W cylinder. The functional specs claim: 2,452 tracks, 615 cylinders (0-614), 4 heads, 2 disks, and "2,7 RLL" recording. Joe says that formatting his ST138N with "605 cylinders" is what he did to make it work properly now. TRUE. If one has brain-damaged SCSI driver software that asks for heads and cylinders and other stuff that it's NOT supposed to know about, we can look again at the geometry of the ST138N and figure this all out per: The ST138N guarantees ONLY 62,933 sectors when using 512-byte sectors. Since we KNOW the physical layout to be 4 heads and 26 sectors per track, we can do a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation and discover: 1) 4 * 26 = 104 sectors per cylinder, physical 2) 62933/104 = 605.125 "cylinders" available for data The other "cylinders" (actually, sectors) are used by the drive as alternates for any earlier bad sectors found during the ST138N's low-level formatting. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/11/89)
ARRGH! In my reply to Joe, I stated the ST138N's manual claims 155 sectors per cylinder. That number should be "103" sectors per cylinder; the 155 value is for the ST157N. Sigh. The difficulties of balancing a manual on one's lap while typing on a keyboard with two hands in a room with poor lighting! :-) My point (re: the "huh?") was that 103 doesn't jibe with the physical layout. The REASON is that they're working with "averages" and assuming one bad sector out of every 104 in terms of where to place the alternate sector to avoid excess head-and-arm motion. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/11/89)
Regarding all the discussion of Seagate drives, I'd like to clarify one point that is being glossed-over: The basic design of the Seagate drives is good. I've consistently stated that IF one can get one's drive to spinup, it WILL operate well. The one design FLAW is the production step during which lubrication is applied to the plated-media platters; it is here where it "appears" Seagate chose to save money by using infinitely-variable human labor instead of expensive, high-technology, state-of-the-art, closed-loop, precision production machinery. Many people bemoan the high INITIAL cost of Maxtor, Wren, and other "quality" drives. With such disk drives, assuming you're not getting gouged by paying the full "list price", you DO get more value in terms of better QA, better tolerances, better performance, and peace-of-mind (especially important if you use computers to earn your wages.) Closer adherence to "specs" (meaning $$$) is also why a racing car's engine and drive train components undergo what is known as "blueprinting": every part being machined to conform to the design, with essentially a zero tolerance. Such "blueprinting" avoids the effects of tolerance buildup and other manufacturing "slop", and is mandatory if one needs the parts to perform AS DESIGNED and computer-simulated. Someone said that Seagate drives were "cheap"; I believe the word "inexpensive" is a better description. If all the manufacturing steps are performed to spec, I have every belief the drives will provide many useful years' service. Caveat emptor! Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
balzer@frambo.dec.com (Christian Balzer) (07/11/89)
In article <3687@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes... >That's ok. Last month I watched the DEC field service people pull a Quantum >out of a Microvax (DEC private-labels Quantums as DEC RD53's at 500% markup) >for replacement due to it deciding to eat the spindle bearings -- the drive >was 9 months old. Impressive sounds were coming from that cabinet prior to >it's death.... Would you care to elaborate that? Or maybe take a second look? The last time I checked (1 hour ago) the two RD53's connected to my Amiga were Micropolis 1325 drives, VERY reliable and fast ST-506 drives. I've been mutilating one of them for about 2 years now w/o any problems whatsoever. While I've no experiences with Seageate drives, the 20MB Epson unit that came with my A2090 died with a stuck spindle while I attended CeBIT '87. Luckily the sucker was still under warranty, and it's successor still works fine. Regards, - <CB> -- _ _ / / | \ \ <CB> aka Christian Balzer - The Software Brewery - < < |-< > EMail: ...!decwrl!frambo.dec.com!CB -OR- CB@frambo.dec.com \ \_ |_/ / E-Net: FRAMBO::BALZER | Home-Phone: +49 6150 4151 (CET!) ------------ PMail: Im Wingertsberg 45, D-6108 Weiterstadt, F.R.G. Disclaimer: These opinions are mine and not those of DEC.
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (07/13/89)
In article <3485@shlump.dec.com> balzer@frambo.dec.com (Christian Balzer) writes: >In article <3687@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes... >>That's ok. Last month I watched the DEC field service people pull a Quantum >>out of a Microvax (DEC private-labels Quantums as DEC RD53's at 500% markup) >>for replacement due to it deciding to eat the spindle bearings -- the drive >>was 9 months old. Impressive sounds were coming from that cabinet prior to >>it's death.... > >Would you care to elaborate that? Or maybe take a second look? The one I saw the field man pull had a DEC RD53 sticker (complete with bar code) and said "Quantum" on the circuit board. Looked pretty conclusive to me. And it was RD53-sized (~70 megs) I'd take a second look to be 100% certain, but the GE guy has the drive :-) >The last time I checked (1 hour ago) the two RD53's connected to my Amiga >were Micropolis 1325 drives, VERY reliable and fast ST-506 drives. >I've been mutilating one of them for about 2 years now w/o any problems >whatsoever. >While I've no experiences with Seageate drives, the 20MB Epson unit that >came with my A2090 died with a stuck spindle while I attended CeBIT '87. >Luckily the sucker was still under warranty, and it's successor still works >fine. I've seen Micropolis 1325's as RD53s as well. In fact, that's what is usually in the machine as a RD53. I suspect that the one we saw get pulled was just a bad drive -- or perhaps the people who installed the disk & system (we didn't sell that box -- we just service the software on it occasionally and get called when it dies) did something wierd and put in the Quantum. Hell if I know. The drive sure LOOKED like authentic DEC gear, and id'd itself as a RD53 on the diagnostic tape.... That particular machine is under GE service (not Digital); the guy who swapped the drive didn't even blink twice when he replaced it. I didn't check the replacement carefully; perhaps GE got snowed. (As for GE, well their man formatted the wrong volume after he replaced the disk.... but that's another story and doesn't belong in the Amiga group!) -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (07/13/89)
After reading both sides of this discussion it seems to me that the best
thing to do with SEAGATE drives is to ensure maximum cooling ( which is probably
one reason for high Apple failure rates) and to leave it on as much as possible.
This build up of lubricant on the edges may increase with temperature, which
would account for the high failure rate in Apple's.
So maybe if you have a Seagate, buy a fan and don't turn it off.
Just another 2 cents worth.
Monty Sainestevem@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Steve McClure) (07/13/89)
In article <1989Jul12.171819.3423@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <3485@shlump.dec.com> balzer@frambo.dec.com (Christian Balzer) writes: >>In article <3687@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes... >>>That's ok. Last month I watched the DEC field service people pull a Quantum >>>out of a Microvax (DEC private-labels Quantums as DEC RD53's at 500% markup) > >>The last time I checked (1 hour ago) the two RD53's connected to my Amiga >>were Micropolis 1325 drives, VERY reliable and fast ST-506 drives. The manufacturer of every system I have ever used always "second sources" their disk/tape drives in case one manufacturer can't come through. This is especially true now that the usage of SCSI devices is so widespread. It is terribly easy to go ask the drive what it is and translate that into your terms. Steve
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (07/13/89)
In article <1989Jul12.171819.3423@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >The one I saw the field man pull had a DEC RD53 sticker (complete with bar >code) and said "Quantum" on the circuit board. Looked pretty conclusive to >me. And it was RD53-sized (~70 megs) > Well we have some DEC equipment around here and I just asked the resident DEC man: RD52's are Quantum drives. He said he thinks its the Q540. RD53's are Micropolis. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/14/89)
Monty Saine comments: " After reading both sides of this discussion it seems to me that the best thing to do with SEAGATE drives is to ensure maximum cooling (which is probably one reason for high Apple failure rates) and to leave it on as much as possible. This build up of lubricant on the edges may increase with temperature, which would account for the high failure rate in Apple's. So maybe if you have a Seagate, buy a fan and don't turn it off. " The BEST thing to do with ALL drives is to operate them in a properly vented and cooled enclosure. Heat is the bane of all things electrical and mechanical. However, there is no evidence to suggest Seagate drives are any more susceptible to thermal problems than any OTHER manufacturers' drives. In my own situation, the ST251 drives that failed were operated in the BEST possible enclosure available, the same kind used by Maxtor itself. These are the ones manufactured by Gigamation, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA) and used in commercial disk-subsystems by Storage Dimensions, Inc. (Los Gatos, CA). These exact same enclosures are NOW being used to operate Maxtor drives (flawlessly). From reading comp.sys.amiga, comp.sys.att, comp.sys.ibm.*, comp.peripherals, unix-pc.*, private email, etc etc etc people have the stiction problems with Seagates no matter how or where they're mounted (internal or external). The evidence suggests that if one's drive's platters received a multiple-wipe, it WILL fail. Sadly, there's no way to examine the platters before purchase. I did hear from one person off the record at this week's FAUG meeting that the problem is almost exclusive to those drives bearing an "Assembled in Singapore" stamp. I just this moment examined all ten of my failed ST251 drives and they ALL bear the "Assembled in Singapore" legend at the bottom of the Seagate label, so there "may" be some truth in that assertion. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/15/89)
While we're on the subject of hard disk reliability and failures ...
The following article appears on page 7 of the July/August 1989 CONNECTION,
published by Computer Plus, 1328 S. Mary Avenue, Sunnvale, California 94087,
408/735-1199, and is reprinted here in its entirety without permission:
"
SERVICE NEWS
APPLE TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE DRIVES
Apple has informed us that a limited number of its 40MB 3.5" hard disk drives
(within the serial number range 335507 to 1023016, inclusive) may experience a
higher than normal failure rate (i.e. the drive does not boot or does not show
up as an icon on the desktop).
If you have a 40MB Apple drive that has experienced such a failure, please bring
it in to our service department. Our technicians will be able to tell you while
you wait whether your drive is within the specified serial number range. If it
is, you are entitled to have your drive replaced at no cost. Please keep in
mind that the turnaround on this type of repair is approximately one week. The
drive replacement program will be in effect through June, 1990.
Although we regret having to report this type of news, it does give us an
opportunity to re-emphasize the fact that, while you may pay more for the Apple
logo, it's usually worth it. Few companies can absorb the high costs and bad
press associated with product recalls and refurbishments. Third-party products
may offer advantages in terms of price or performance, but we urge customers to
consider other factors as well, such as the reputations of the company, length
of product testing, and availability of extended service contracts.
"
Since I used to buy my SCSI cables at Computer Plus before the local Amiga
dealer, HT Electronics, started stocking the same brand, and because the people
at Computer Plus are friendly and helpful, I'm only going to make one comment
about the preceding article:
1,023,016 ending serial number of inclusive range
- 335,507 beginning serial number of inclusive range
---------
>>>>>>>>> 687,509 <<<<<<<<<
^^^^^^^
|||||||
HOLY BAT GUANO, BATMAN! That's one HELLUVA lot of defective hard disk drives
that will be replaced at no cost and with no questions asked!
And the failure mode is our ol' friend: "stiction."
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]a309@mindlink.UUCP (George Lin) (07/18/89)
Anybody with any brains at all will know that it is physically impossible to apply a coating of any lubracant (Most are ORGANIC), to any surface with a linin cloth. Any metrologists can confirm this. (BTW, optical quartz, and even steel used in metrology will stick together by squegeeing the air out from between the two surfaces with a little pressure)
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/24/89)
In: a309@mindlink.UUCP (George Lin), he states: > Anybody with any brains at all will know that it is physically impossible to > apply a coating of any lubracant (Most are ORGANIC), to any surface with a > linin cloth. > > Any metrologists can confirm this. (BTW, optical quartz, and even steel used > in metrology will stick together by squegeeing the air out from between the two > surfaces with a little pressure) Seems he chooses to overlook Caig Labs' (among others) instructions for the application of such lubricant. Seems he doesn't spell well, either. Both failings are his problem.
a309@mindlink.UUCP (George Lin) (07/26/89)
> thad writes: > > Seems he chooses to overlook Caig Labs' (among others) instructions for the > application of such lubricant. > > Seems he doesn't spell well, either. > > Both failings are his problem. You are joking right? I didn't think anyone could think about spreading anything 5 molecules thick with a linin cloth. IF (a big IF) Caig Labs suggests application of a lubricant with a linin cloth (and not to mention 1 swipe of this linin cloth) don't try measuring thickness with molecules unless you're using DNA chains. Well, maybe you are right? Turtle Wax Labs does say to apply their lubricant with a cloth. And I often grease my pans with a cellulose based paper towel. Tell me,.... how smooth do you think a linin cloth is? Sure, amuse me and tell me the standard deviation in 'molecules'. There must be billions and billions (Carl ol' buddy) of 'lubricant' molecules on any surface if you can smell the lubricant. A molecule (well, more like thousands of molecules) of the lubricant must contact (fit into) cells in your nose for you to recognize it's scent. Now imagine taking a big breath in. Can you smell the lubricant? Well, if it was 5 molecules thick, it's now only 4 molecules thick. Please excuse any spelling errors. I post my messages at 2:30 in the morning and typos, missing 's'es, or missing prepositions are of little concern to me at this time. If spelling errors are what you look for... WELL, you should be delighted! I never bother to use the online spell checker, so you don't have to let your only talent go to waste. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please, get some REAL data, and stop measuring lubricant thickness with molecules.
pswanson@umvlsi.ECS.UMASS.EDU (Paul Swanson) (07/28/89)
The "common sense" of several people involved in this thread (including one who claimed to be a chemist) is making me cringe. I am posting this response to hopefully enlighten, or at least give plausible explanations for "this molecular stuff". In article <417@mindlink.UUCP> a309@mindlink.UUCP (George Lin) writes: >> thad writes: >> >> (Stuff from Thad deleted) >You are joking right? I didn't think anyone could think about spreading >anything 5 molecules thick with a linin cloth. You are right but you are wrong. A linen cloth by itself cannot spread things on a molecular scale but it doesn't need to. All that is necessary is for the cloth to put down the required amount of material. Surface tension forces should take care of spreading it out on a molecular scale. >IF (a big IF) Caig Labs suggests application of a lubricant with a linin cloth >(and not to mention 1 swipe of this linin cloth) don't try measuring thickness >with molecules unless you're using DNA chains. Actually I am willing to bet that the lubricant molecules are quite large although not as large as DNA molecules. However, the calculation of the layers of molucules was probably done macroscopically. Take the total number of molecules put down on the surface. Determine the "size" of a single molecule (i.e. call it a sphere and guess its radius). Determine how many molucules it will take to make a single layer. Divide the total number of molucules by the number of molecules per layer and call it the molecular thickness. Of course this calculation is garbage since the disk platter is nowhere near smooth on a molecular level. The surface is no doubt very much like a mountain range and the lubricant will tend to fill in the valleys but this is beyond the scope of this news group. >(more stuff deleted) In a previous article someone said they didn't see how 6 layers of molecules could stick two surfaces together. Well if 6 layers can't do it then what can? The Bonding at the interface of two materials is the only thing that determines how well they will stick together not the thickness of them.
a309@mindlink.UUCP (George Lin) (07/30/89)
> Org. : University of Massachusetts, Amherst > Person: Paul Swanson > Surface tension forces should take care of spreading it out on a > molecular scale. Well, you are right, and you are wrong. Surface tension will help to spread out a material, but it also helps to hold a material in a ball. And the key word here is SURFACE. If you are talking about capillary action (ie, a matrix such as paper or cloth, both will permit a fluid to have a SA/V ratio) then the surface tension will help to spread out the lubricant very rapidly. But if you are referring to a drop of oil on a sheet of glass, then the drop of oil will remain a drop of oil (provided the drop is small enough and its mass is does not overcome the surface tension. At 5 molecules thick, well, that's pretty small). TRY IT!. > Actually I am willing to bet that the lubricant molecules are quite > large although not as large as DNA molecules. Well, I'm willing to bet that the lubricant molecules are not even 1/100 the size of a DNA molecule. > However, the calculation of the layers of molecules was probably done > macroscopically. Take the total number of molecules put down on the > surface. Determine the "size" of a single molecule. In this case, Absolutely not! How are you going to know how many molecules you have applied to the surface of the disc? The lubricant with a linin cloth, remember!? How much lubricant is left on the cloth? How much on the disc? You can get a rough approximation if you are dealing with a large quantity of lubricant, but in this case, we are not. 5 molecules thick on a 5&1/4in disc is less than a drop. I submit to you, the only way find the thickness of the lubricant layer, is measurement. > The surface is no doubt very much like a mountain range and the > lubricant will tend to fill in the valleys ... Well I agree with you totally. And this is what I was trying to say. By this reasoning, the average thickness would be much, much more than a few molecules thick. > The Bonding at the interface of two materials is the only thing that > determines how well they will stick together not the thickness of > them. Yes, that makes sense (after all the valleys have been filled in, of course).
charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) (08/02/89)
>> However, the calculation of the layers of molecules was probably done >> macroscopically. Take the total number of molecules put down on the >> surface. Determine the "size" of a single molecule. > In this case, Absolutely not! How are you going to know how many > molecules you have applied to the surface of the disc? The lubricant > with a linin cloth, remember!? How much lubricant is left > on the cloth? How much on the disc? You can get a rough approximation > if you are dealing with a large quantity of lubricant, but in this case, > we are not. 5 molecules thick on a 5&1/4in disc is less than a drop. > I submit to you, the only way find the thickness of the lubricant layer, > is measurement. 1. Weigh the disk. 2. Spread the lubricant onto the disk. 3. Weigh the disk. 4. The rest of this procedure will be left as an exercise for the student. ;-) -- Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!" Not representing my employer. --------- | THIMK | ---------
a309@mindlink.UUCP (George Lin) (08/02/89)
> > 1. Weigh the disk. > 2. Spread the lubricant onto the disk. > 3. Weigh the disk. > 4. The rest of this procedure will be left as an exercise for the > student. ;-) > -- > --------- > | THIMK | > --------- Yes, this is perfectly possible, and resonable to do on the assembly line as long as (mass of lubricant)*100000 > (mass of disk) Sorry, my appologies, I didn't THIMK of that. :)
johnhlee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Vince Lee) (08/13/89)
****** NEWS FLASH ! ****** Congratulate me! I have just been initiated into a not-so-exclusive club! Yup, yesterday my Seagate drive STUCK on me for the first time. I took my machine see a friend (after parking it of course) and when I powered up... nothing! It took ten minutes of diddling with the stepper motor to get it to come and stay up, upon which I checked it out and reparked it for the return trip. When I got it home... the same story. Guess what? I've used the drive for 15 months! Gee, don't you think it's a little suspicious that these drives fail after the warranty is over? At least I have a non-autoparking controller. -Vince