c08_d036@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dom Alvear) (05/06/89)
I hope this gets out there, as this is my first post. I just purchased a Seagate ST296N, but haven't received it yet. I remember reading articles previously about problems with the Rom 8 chip set over the Rom 7. Could somebody PLEASE reproduce some of the information about it? I didn't realize when I changed my order to the 296N, that I'd be getting a bad hard drive. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Domingo B. Alvear (Dom) P.S. If I did anything wrong, please tell me. I claim any responsibility for errors in this posting. (Any hints or tips would be helpful...)
bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Moja Fritzah) (05/06/89)
In article <1720@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> c08_d036@jhunix.UUCP (Dom Alvear) writes: > > >I just purchased a Seagate ST296N, but haven't received it yet. I >remember reading articles previously about problems with the Rom 8 >chip set over the Rom 7. > >Domingo B. Alvear (Dom) > I can be positive that most netters who followed my "Seagate Swet" would do best to hit "n" at this point. I became quite interested in the Seagate ST296N for two reasons: 1) 80+ megs 2) "Fast" 28ms and 1:1 interleave. Mind you, i had researched several drives over a period of several months... reached the conclusion that the 296N was very good for the money. Got it home with Supra host. Worked like a wonder! The joys of a hard drive were mine. In comparison to the floppy, it was night and day... at least for "smaller" sized files. I was disturbed by the fact that it took nearly 30 seconds to pull up NOTATOR. Got to thinking. Was about the same time that the ICD ratehd.prg hit the nets along with a sequence of hard drive performance articles. I ran the program on my drive. A whopping 57k/s transfer rate! and a 23-25ms seek. THe seek was looking good. But other netters were getting 300 -675 k/s transfer rates with a sundry of drives. To make a long story short (and i know it's too late ) ... i had the newer ROM 8's. Older 296N's had ROM 7's. WHile Seagate had advertized their drives to go 1:1, it was obvious that the drive was running about 10% of its suggested speed. My dealer at the time had heard something about ROM 8's not being as fast as ROM7's. More transpiration && perspiration. The denoument revealed that Seagate themselves failed an attempt to format their 296N 1:1 and run it on a 386. Further research led Seagate back to the drawing boards. Seagate has indicated that they will be revising the firmware, but that there would be no easy upgrade (read "No upgrade."). However, the drive works perfectly fine formatted 2:1, though the transfer rate is noticeably slower -> 407 k/s... than it would be were the 1:1 format to succeed. BTW: Other netters with the 296N ROM 8's confirmed my ratehd.prg results.... but are happy with 407k/s. Anyone who has achieved acceptable results with ROM 8's 1:1, please reveal yourself. I would like to think i was a fool for a month and a half... (ie. perhaps the problem was elsewhere in the drive). I ended up with a Quantum 80S, because neither Seagate nor my dealer could guarantee me an exchange for a ROM7 296N. My Quantum does 675 k/s and is perfectly quiet. -kevin bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) (05/07/89)
I believe my article on the Seagate ROM problems are detailed in ST-REPORT nr. 83... Peter Szymonik Xorg@cup.portal.com thanx to Kevin for the info!