jtang@orion.cf.uci.edu ( James ) (08/18/89)
Say if I go to a computer story and ask for Seagate 296N drive, how would I know/identify if it has the rev 7 ROM???? Please send me via mail or post. James Usenet: jtang@orion.cf.uci.edu Bitnet: JWTang@UCIVMSA.BITNET
bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Moja Fritzah) (08/18/89)
In article <2520@orion.cf.uci.edu> jtang@orion.cf.uci.edu ( James ) writes: >Say if I go to a computer story and ask for Seagate 296N drive, how would I >know/identify if it has the rev 7 ROM???? Most dealers don't know about the different ROM versions for the Seagate 296N drive. If the dealer is putting the kit together for you, ask him to let you see the drive before they stick it in the case. There should be a ROM number printed on the side of the drive. Also, the original packing/box should have the ROM number printed on one side. Thirdly, the packing slip from the manufacturer gives the drive's specs. Don't get your hopes up, most of the ROM 7 277N's and 296N's vanished about 8-10 months ago. Seagate promised to do yet another revision, but i have yet to hear about its existence. Note that many folks with the ROM 8 296N are quite happy with 2:1 interleave and about 400+k data transfer rate. After all, most things coming off your drive are relatively small. Unless you have disk intensive operations going all the time, you may be satisfied with ROM 8's. I eventually returned my 296N and bought a Quantum 80S. It moves data about 675k/sec and has a seek rate of 11/19ms (11ms when using its 64k cache). The Supra blast.prg gave me 18 pics/sec. -kevin bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) (08/20/89)
A spec sheet is usually included with new Seagate drives - on there it will specifically state which ROM's were used - but you can forget about asking any hard drive distributor to check and see what they are selling - odd's are that they won't even have a clue what you're talking about! Seagate is no help either - they claim that the difference isn't noticable (ha!) Peter Szymonik Xorg@cup.portal.com
andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) (08/22/89)
bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu writes: | | Thirdly, the packing slip from the manufacturer gives the drive's specs. | I'll verify this - I'm looking at mine right now. | Note that many folks with the ROM 8 296N are quite happy with | 2:1 interleave and about 400+k data transfer rate. After all, most | things coming off your drive are relatively small. Unless you have | disk intensive operations going all the time, you may be satisfied with | ROM 8's. | I'll also verify this. My experience is that the FAT lookup is a much bigger bottleneck than transfer rate - even with FATSPEED. Also, when loading large programs, I notice that quite often it takes the program 2-3 times longer to wake up than it took to get it off disk. Increasing transfer rate 30% isn't going to be very helpful. My guess is that handling very large data files is where the transfer rate is going to get in your way - then you want to try something like the Quantum Kevin mentioned. I'd also mention that a good disk cache is really the best way to speed up some disk-intensive operations like compiles, short of putting all the libraries, files and executables in a RAM disk, that is. I use DCACHE and with 200-300K of cache, recompiles often only make one or two brief disk accesses. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those solely of the author, who has no pecuniary interest in the companies mentioned. Copyright (c) 1989 by Andrew Cassino. All rights reserved. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Andy Cassino % % uucp: hplabs!hplsla!andyc domain: andyc%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com % % Hewlett-Packard Lake Stevens Instrument Division % % 8600 Soper Hill Road Everett, WA 98205-1298 % % (206) 335-2211 % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Moja Fritzah) (08/23/89)
In article <5440047@hplsla.HP.COM> andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) writes: >bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu writes: >| >| Thirdly, the packing slip from the manufacturer gives the drive's specs. >| >| Note that many folks with the ROM 8 296N are quite happy with >| 2:1 interleave and about 400+k data transfer rate. After all, most >| things coming off your drive are relatively small. Unless you have >| disk intensive operations going all the time, you may be satisfied with >| ROM 8's. >| > >I'll also verify this. My experience is that the FAT lookup is a much bigger >bottleneck than transfer rate - even with FATSPEED. Also, when loading large >programs, I notice that quite often it takes the program 2-3 times longer to >wake up than it took to get it off disk. Increasing transfer rate 30% ^^^^ The math is really closer to a 70% difference: My Quantum at 1:1 delivers 675k/sec versus a 2:1 Seagate 296N delivering 400+k/sec. To me, that's almost a 70% improvement with the Quantum. >isn't going to be very helpful. My guess is that handling very large data >files is where the transfer rate is going to get in your way - then you >want to try something like the Quantum Kevin mentioned. > Or, if after the program is "awake", it still needs to pull stuff off the drive on a frequent basis. >I'd also mention that a good disk cache is really the best way to speed >up some disk-intensive operations like compiles, short of putting all the >libraries, files and executables in a RAM disk, that is. I use DCACHE and >with 200-300K of cache, recompiles often only make one or two brief disk >accesses. The Quantum has a programmable 64k cache/pre-fetch that is very noticeble... Seems like a zero seek rate. I haven't tried DCACHE yet... may interfere with my drive... we'll see. My only comment about the Seagate 296N is that it was supposed to be a 1:1 interleave drive, and people paid money for that spec. As far as I know, Seagate has yet to deal fairly with its customers who purchased the ROM8 version of the 296N. -kevin bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) (08/25/89)
bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu writes: | >I'll also verify this. My experience is that the FAT lookup is a much bigger | >bottleneck than transfer rate - even with FATSPEED. Also, when loading large | >programs, I notice that quite often it takes the program 2-3 times longer to | >wake up than it took to get it off disk. Increasing transfer rate 30% | ^^^^ | The math is really closer to a 70% difference: | My Quantum at 1:1 delivers 675k/sec versus a 2:1 Seagate 296N | delivering 400+k/sec. To me, that's almost a 70% improvement | with the Quantum. Er, sorry, I was comparing ROM 7 & 8 versions of the Seagate. I get 431k/sec, and 550k/sec is what the Seagate ROM 7 will do at 1:1. So, that's... 22% difference between ROM versions. | | My only comment about the Seagate 296N is that it was supposed to | be a 1:1 interleave drive, and people paid money for that spec. | As far as I know, Seagate has yet to deal fairly with its customers | who purchased the ROM8 version of the 296N. | Well, the ROM 8 does format 1:1, and an ST can read it, though it's doggo-slow. The optimum interleave for any computer/controller/disc combination is not always 1:1! Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those solely of the author, who has no pecuniary interest in the companies mentioned. Copyright (c) 1989 by Andrew Cassino. All rights reserved. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Andy Cassino % % uucp: hplabs!hplsla!andyc domain: andyc%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com % % Hewlett-Packard Lake Stevens Instrument Division % % 8600 Soper Hill Road Everett, WA 98205-1298 % % (206) 335-2211 % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (08/25/89)
In article <5440048@hplsla.HP.COM>, andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) writes: (Replying to the statement: ) > | > | My only comment about the Seagate 296N is that it was supposed to > | be a 1:1 interleave drive, and people paid money for that spec. > | As far as I know, Seagate has yet to deal fairly with its customers > | who purchased the ROM8 version of the 296N. > | > > Well, the ROM 8 does format 1:1, and an ST can read it, though it's doggo-slow. > The optimum interleave for any computer/controller/disc combination is > not always 1:1! This is true, but cheating on meanings. When one says that a disk with built-in controller can be formatted for 1:1 interleave, the normal expectation is that this means the controller will be able to deliver consecutive sectors to a DMA device without read errors. In other words, you can read a whole track in one revolution if your computer is fast enough. The ST 296N can't do this (Rev 8 ROM). It has nothing to do with the computer. The optimum interleave for a single magnetic disk on a system is the tightest interleave that doesn't give frequent failures (for small interleave ratios, at least: note that I said for a single disk). The ST 296N gives something like 50% failures when you try to read consecutive sectors consecutively, and a few failures when you try to read alternate sectors consecutively (2:1 interleave) Given the ordinary usages of words, that means it doesn't support 1:1 interleave. All this is against the background that I have an ST 296N (formatted for 2:1 interleave), I like it very much, I recommend it as about the best buy around in disk drives and I rescued a friend who was mad at his ST 296N (on a PC compatible) with 1:1 interleave (he finds 3:1 better than 2:1). Steve J.
andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) (08/28/89)
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: |> The optimum interleave for any computer/controller/disc combination is |> not always 1:1! | |This is true, but cheating on meanings. When one says that a disk with |built-in controller can be formatted for 1:1 interleave, the normal expectation |is that this means the controller will be able to deliver consecutive sectors |to a DMA device without read errors. In other words, you can read a whole |track in one revolution if your computer is fast enough. The ST 296N can't |do this (Rev 8 ROM). It has nothing to do with the computer. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm not trying to be argumentative (really!), but I wonder what the reason is for deciding the computer has nothing to do with it. Is it not possible that ROM 8 Seagates are somewhat faster than ROM 7 Seagates (in sector-to-sector delivery) and that the ST can't handle it at 1:1? Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those solely of the author, who has no pecuniary interest in the companies mentioned. Copyright (c) 1989 by Andrew Cassino. All rights reserved. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Andy Cassino % % uucp: hplabs!hplsla!andyc domain: andyc%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com % % Hewlett-Packard Lake Stevens Instrument Division % % 8600 Soper Hill Road Everett, WA 98205-1298 % % (206) 335-2211 % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Moja Fritzah) (08/29/89)
In article <5440050@hplsla.HP.COM> andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) writes: >saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: > >|> The optimum interleave for any computer/controller/disc combination is >|> not always 1:1! >| >|This is true, but cheating on meanings. When one says that a disk with >|built-in controller can be formatted for 1:1 interleave, the normal expectation >|is that this means the controller will be able to deliver consecutive sectors >|to a DMA device without read errors. In other words, you can read a whole >|track in one revolution if your computer is fast enough. The ST 296N can't >|do this (Rev 8 ROM). It has nothing to do with the computer. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I'm not trying to be argumentative (really!), but I wonder what the reason is >for deciding the computer has nothing to do with it. Is it not possible that >ROM 8 Seagates are somewhat faster than ROM 7 Seagates (in sector-to-sector >delivery) and that the ST can't handle it at 1:1? > > > % Andy Cassino % It would be nice to put this thing to rest. I was the one who back in Feb started the discussion on Rom 7 and Rom 8 Seagates, in particular, the 296N. I saw many advertisements for the 296N delivering 1:1 interleave FOR the ATARI ST. Both dealers and mail-order houses confirmed that the 296N went 1:1 on the 1040ST. The selling price at that time was $620-$750 for the mech alone. I bought the drive. Formatted it with Supra software. The drive worked. As i had previously been running off of floppies for 2.5 years, the hard drive seemed like a gift from god.... until i realized that 20 secs to get NOTATOR off my drive couldn't be good performance. At that time, there was much discussion on the nets regarding transfer rates due to the release of ratehd.prg. I ran ratehd and got 57k/sec. I should have gotten at least 10 times that considering the mech was rated at 10Mbits/sec (some loss due to adaptor etc.) Further investigation which included about 30 some odd phone calls and about 50 hours of sweat and aggravation revealed a bug in the ROM 7. This bug IS independent of the ST... Proof in point points to Seagate themselves confirming that they couldn't get their 386 to work 1:1 as well as a few other machines of theirs. They admitted that a revision would be necessary but that there would be no easy solution... that is, a single chip replacement was impossible. Mind you that several people at Seagate knew nothing about the different Roms... and one rep, the "specialist" for the N drives, told me anything around 200k was "a great transfer rate".... i told him that 57k wasn't so good. So i bought a quantum 80, which is faster than a Seagate, but NOT too fast for an ST. -kevin bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Moja Fritzah) (08/29/89)
Sorry for the mistake: The bug is in the Seagate ROM 8, not in "ROM 7" as i had posted in the previous article. again.. sorry for the confusion. -kevin
logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan) (08/30/89)
In article <3409@blake.acs.washington.edu> bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Moja Fritzah) writes: > >[stuff deleted] > >I saw many advertisements for the 296N delivering 1:1 interleave >FOR the ATARI ST. Both dealers and mail-order houses confirmed that >the 296N went 1:1 on the 1040ST. The selling price at that time >was $620-$750 for the mech alone. I bought the drive. Formatted >it with Supra software. The drive worked. As i had previously ^^^^^ > Were you also using a Supra host adapter at the time? I have been trying to find an ICD host adapter owner who has been afflicted with this curse. I've failed so far. (BTW, I am one of the Supra host adapter user who has experienced this problem with Seagate drives but that cleared up when I switched to an ICD.) > > [stuff about the 296N and Seagate deleted] > >So i bought a quantum 80, which is faster than a Seagate, but NOT >too fast for an ST. > Heck, if an Imprimis 94181-702 or an 94181-385H isn't too fast for a ST, there is no way that a Seagate can be! Of course, there is the problem of "bottleneck" though. After a certain point, buying a faster hard drive just doesn't speed up real world performance anymore. [These few lines don't really belong here but inews simply will not let me post this article unless I "fill" it out a bit with excess "non-quoted" lines. Sigh...] -- Henry Kwan - FWB, Inc. | "Experience varies directly claris!wet!logic@ames.arc.nasa.gov | with equipment ruined." cca.ucsf.edu!wet!logic@cgl.ucsf.edu | {claris,ucsfcca,hoptoad,lamc}!wet!logic | -- Tech Support
andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) (08/31/89)
| | Were you also using a Supra host adapter at the time? I have been trying to | find an ICD host adapter owner who has been afflicted with this curse. I've | failed so far. (BTW, I am one of the Supra host adapter user who has | experienced this problem with Seagate drives but that cleared up when I | switched to an ICD.) | I am using an ICD Host Adaptor and I have the "curse". Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those solely of the author, who has no pecuniary interest in the companies mentioned. Copyright (c) 1989 by Andrew Cassino. All rights reserved. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Andy Cassino % % uucp: hplabs!hplsla!andyc domain: andyc%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com % % Hewlett-Packard Lake Stevens Instrument Division % % 8600 Soper Hill Road Everett, WA 98205-1298 % % (206) 335-2211 % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) (08/31/89)
In article <502@wet.UUCP> logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan) writes: > >Were you also using a Supra host adapter at the time? I have been trying to >find an ICD host adapter owner who has been afflicted with this curse. I've >failed so far. (BTW, I am one of the Supra host adapter user who has >experienced this problem with Seagate drives but that cleared up when I >switched to an ICD.) > Actually, yes.. i was using the Supra Host Adaptor... However, postmortem 296N, a tech told me that he tried formatting a ROM 8 277N with ICD and had the same problem.. got ridiculous results at 1:1. But, i somehow believe you when you say that ICD, 296N and 1:1 work... While i am currently using Supra all around with my Quantum, past experience with Supra has led me to believe ANYTHING is possible. Still doesn't explain how Seagate themselves were not able to run a 386 1:1 with a 296N ROM 8.... at least this is what they told my dealer. -kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu