espen@well.UUCP (Peter Espen) (11/19/89)
> In fact, MicroNet has put a freeze on purchasing ALL Quantum drives > until the problem is 100% fixed. The drive mechanism problem on the P-40S and > P-80S has replicated itself on the P-105S, but to a much lesser extent, so > before the 105's got really bad, MicroNet just basically told Quantum "call us > when it's fixed, we're not selling anything made by you until you do." > Well it's been over 5 weeks since the new ROM "fix" was installed on my 80 meg Quantum drive, and contrary to what Apple and Quantum are trying to tell us, my drive is still going thru these noisy exercise routines that slow the drive response down by at least 4 times. In fact, my drive is doing it right at this moment. To bad Apple and Quantum can't just be honest and try to come up with a REAL solution. Maybe they could even let people like me trade up to a 105 drive for a small fee. Peter Espen (espen@well)
eacj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Julian Vrieslander) (11/19/89)
In article <14618@well.UUCP> espen@well.UUCP (Peter Espen) writes: >> In fact, MicroNet has put a freeze on purchasing ALL Quantum drives >> until the problem is 100% fixed. The drive mechanism problem on the P-40S and >> P-80S has replicated itself on the P-105S, but to a much lesser extent, so >> before the 105's got really bad, MicroNet just basically told Quantum "call us >> when it's fixed, we're not selling anything made by you until you do." >> > > Well it's been over 5 weeks since the new ROM "fix" was installed >on my 80 meg Quantum drive, and contrary to what Apple and Quantum are >trying to tell us, my drive is still going thru these noisy exercise >routines that slow the drive response down by at least 4 times. In fact, >my drive is doing it right at this moment. > To bad Apple and Quantum can't just be honest and try to come up >with a REAL solution. Maybe they could even let people like me trade up >to a 105 drive for a small fee. I have had a SuperMac XP100i up and going for a couple of days now (after finally getting the correct power connector). I believe this is a Quantum Pro 105 drive. I do notice that the drive will occasionally exercize its swing arm when there is no read/write going on. Every few minutes there is a very brief sound, as if the arm makes one stroke and stops (I have not timed it). It was a bit disconcerting at first, but the activity is barely audible and does not interfere with the subjective responsiveness of the drive. In fact, most folks are pleasantly surprised at the speediness of this disk (of course, the IIci gets some of the credit here). Is the spontaneous activity on the 40 and 80 meg Quantums much more frequent and noisy? -- Julian Vrieslander Neurobiology & Behavior, W250 Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853 UUCP: {cmcl2,decvax,rochester,uw-beaver}!cornell!batcomputer!eacj INTERNET: eacj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu BITNET: eacj@CRNLTHRY
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/20/89)
eacj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Julian Vrieslander) writes: >In article <14618@well.UUCP> espen@well.UUCP (Peter Espen) writes: >>> In fact, MicroNet has put a freeze on purchasing ALL Quantum drives >>> until the problem is 100% fixed. The drive mechanism problem on the P-40S and >>> P-80S has replicated itself on the P-105S, but to a much lesser extent, so >>> before the 105's got really bad, MicroNet just basically told Quantum "call us >>> when it's fixed, we're not selling anything made by you until you do." >> >> Well it's been over 5 weeks since the new ROM "fix" was installed >>on my 80 meg Quantum drive, and contrary to what Apple and Quantum are >>trying to tell us, my drive is still going thru these noisy exercise >>routines that slow the drive response down by at least 4 times. In fact, >>my drive is doing it right at this moment. >> To bad Apple and Quantum can't just be honest and try to come up >>with a REAL solution. Maybe they could even let people like me trade up >>to a 105 drive for a small fee. > >I have had a SuperMac XP100i up and going for a couple of days now (after >finally getting the correct power connector). I believe this is a Quantum >Pro 105 drive. > >I do notice that the drive will occasionally exercize its swing arm when >there is no read/write going on. Every few minutes there is a very brief >sound, as if the arm makes one stroke and stops (I have not timed it). >It was a bit disconcerting at first, but the activity is barely audible and does >not interfere with the subjective responsiveness of the drive. In fact, >most folks are pleasantly surprised at the speediness of this disk (of course, >the IIci gets some of the credit here). > >Is the spontaneous activity on the 40 and 80 meg Quantums much more frequent >and noisy? From my understanding, yes, the problem is exponentially worse on the P-40S and P-80S. I would not get a P-105S either. The only reason I have them is because they were the only ones that didn't seem to have the problem. I know the ones on our SPARCstation 1 don't have the problem, but the other two are pretty new (we ordered them eons ago), so I can't say. I have not worked with a drive with the ROM fix, I have only found drives that do freeze up that have the infamous defect. Until I am sure that the problem is corrected, I am following in MicroNet's footsteps and have froze all purchase orders for Quantum period. All Sun workstations that use the P-105S internally we just buy diskless now and put in a purchase order to Artecon for an external 327 Mb or 636 Mb SCSI hard drive. Besides, 208 Mb is barely enough just to turn on the machine and put SunOS on. :) Get a clue Apple and Quantum, we are tired of this bull(*bleep*)! /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * 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 *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Apple Computer, Inc. is really the Anti-Christ! *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to * speak in the best interests of the company (yet). *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
spector@brillig.umd.edu (Lee Spector) (11/20/89)
In article <9323@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> eacj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Julian Vrieslander) writes: > >I have had a SuperMac XP100i up and going for a couple of days now (after >finally getting the correct power connector). I believe this is a Quantum >Pro 105 drive. > >I do notice that the drive will occasionally exercize its swing arm when >there is no read/write going on. Every few minutes there is a very brief >sound, as if the arm makes one stroke and stops (I have not timed it). >It was a bit disconcerting at first, but the activity is barely audible and does >not interfere with the subjective responsiveness of the drive. In fact, >most folks are pleasantly surprised at the speediness of this disk (of course, >the IIci gets some of the credit here). > >Is the spontaneous activity on the 40 and 80 meg Quantums much more frequent >and noisy? The post-ROM-"fix" problem on the 80 meg Quantum is far worse than what you describe. In fact, my 80 meg Quantum has ALWAYS displayed the symptom which you describe, and I am under the impression that periodic occurences of brief (< 1 second), spontaneous activity are perfectly normal for these drives. I've seen various explanations for this activity - some have described it as a sort of "re-allignment" - and I don't think it's anything to worry about. The NEW problem (post "fix") is a rattling sound that continues for a long time - usually until the user explicitly causes a subsequent read/write to the disk. Sometimes it takes several read/writes to stop the sound, and it usually comes back fairly soon (at least this is my experience with my IIcx). I've heard that the problem is supposed to fix itself within a few weeks, but as has been mentioned in previous posts (by myself and others) this does not seem to be the case. When this rattling sound is occurring there IS noticable slowdown of drive accesses. -Lee (spector@cs.umd.edu)
tempest@wet.UUCP (Ken Lui) (11/21/89)
In article <9323@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> eacj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Julian Vrieslander) writes: >I do notice that the drive will occasionally exercize its swing arm when >there is no read/write going on. Every few minutes there is a very brief >sound, as if the arm makes one stroke and stops (I have not timed it). From my understanding, this sound is caused by the internal cache. I have a ProDrive 105S as well, and the literature says that its cache has a look-ahead feature. When the drive's idle, my guess is that it reads the "next" piece of data from the drive and stores it in the cache. Or so the tech support says who sold me my 105S. Ken -- _____________________________________________________________________________ Kenneth K.F. Lui | UUCP: ...{ucsfcca|claris}!wet!tempest tempest@wet.UUCP | Internet: cca.ucsf.edu!wet!tempest@cgl.ucsf.edu | -or- claris!wet!tempest@ames.arc.nasa.gov
jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) (11/21/89)
In article <788@wet.UUCP> tempest@wet.UUCP (Ken Lui) writes: >In article <9323@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> eacj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Julian Vrieslander) writes: >>I do notice that the drive will occasionally exercize its swing arm when >>there is no read/write going on.... > >...my guess is that it reads the "next" piece of data from the drive >and stores it in the cache. Pray tell, what exactly is the "next" piece of data from the drive? Does the drive analyze the contents of the computer's memory while it idles to determine what data is about to be read? Or does it use some sort of tachyon delay line to read the future in a more straightforward way? The only sensible caching schemes that can be implemented by a drive without cooperation from the host are those that cache previously-read, frequently- read, and/or adjacent sectors (i.e., might as well read the whole track anyway on the assumption it will all get used eventually). Your drive could be put to much more efficient use if it were used in a multitasking environment and managed by a real disk controller; however you shouldn't expect anything too subtle from a "dumb" caching drive. A lot of this effort is obviated by, for example, the Mac's own RAM cache and the Resource Manager, which do the same thing but in a more directed, productive fashion. >Or so the tech support says who sold me my 105S. Uh huh. Although I'm ignorant on the exact details of the latest bunch of Quantum drives, it sounds as if they now try to prevent various forms of "stiction" by keeping all the possibly sticky parts moving ... I'm sure what they're doing is "within spec," and not detrimental to the drive in the long-term, but then again they ARE the folks who write up and test against the specs ... v v sssss|| joseph hall || 4116 Brewster Drive v v s s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Raleigh, NC 27606 v sss || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist -----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.
espen@well.UUCP (Peter Espen) (11/22/89)
In article <9323@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, eacj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Julian Vrieslander) writes: > > I do notice that the drive will occasionally exercize its swing arm when > there is no read/write going on. Every few minutes there is a very brief > sound, as if the arm makes one stroke and stops (I have not timed it). > It was a bit disconcerting at first, but the activity is barely audible and does > not interfere with the subjective responsiveness of the drive. In fact, > most folks are pleasantly surprised at the speediness of this disk (of course, > the IIci gets some of the credit here). > > Is the spontaneous activity on the 40 and 80 meg Quantums much more frequent > and noisy? > > -- > Julian Vrieslander > Neurobiology & Behavior, W250 Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853 As far as I know, most of the Pro series 105 drives have been immune from the "stiction" problem that has been killing the 40 and 80 Meg Quantums. I'm not sure why your drive is doing what it is, but it sounds to me like a part of normal operation. I've always noticed that my Mac II and also the MacIIcx at work does this occasionally. I think it depends on what programs you're running etc.. What happens if you have the ROM fix installed on a Quantum is a random exercising of the head arm that can last for several minutes and is quite noticable. This exercise routine drastically degrades the performance fo the drive when it is occurring. Peter Espen (espen@well)
thecloud@dhw68k.cts.com (Ken McLeod) (11/26/89)
In article <20837@mimsy.umd.edu> spector@brillig.umd.edu.UUCP (Lee Spector) writes: >The NEW problem (post "fix") is a rattling sound that continues for a long >time - usually until the user explicitly causes a subsequent read/write to >the disk. Sometimes it takes several read/writes to stop the sound, and >it usually comes back fairly soon (at least this is my experience with my >IIcx). I've heard that the problem is supposed to fix itself within a few >weeks, but as has been mentioned in previous posts (by myself and others) >this does not seem to be the case. When this rattling sound is occurring >there IS noticable slowdown of drive accesses. Oddly enough, the problem does seem to have "fixed itself" after approx. 1 month of hyperactive, rattling, performance-degrading accesses on my IIcx. When I first got the drive (with the new ROM), the performance was horrible. Now that the drive has been "broken in," the hyper-access problem seems to have gone away. Possibly it takes a while for the lubricant to spread evenly, or achieve some kind of magic viscosity level? Or am I just lucky? -ken -- ========== ....... ============================================= Ken McLeod :. .: UUCP: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!thecloud ========== :::.. ..::: INTERNET: thecloud@dhw68k.cts.com //// =============================================
greg@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Gregory James) (11/28/89)
I have read a number of articles preaching the virtues of LaCie hard drives. Well, in fact, I have no bones with the drives, just the software. I bought SilverServer from them, and decided it was a piece of junk. The docs. say that it might attempt to re-initialize your drive when you install it if you have a weird hard drive. I have a SE with a HD20, and it got re-initialized. Further, the whole thing crashed two days later. There was simply no way I was going to run through the entire thing again with my Mac II with the Apple HD40. I returned it, and wrote them a letter about what a hunk of junk SilverInitializer was. Oh, yeah. The tech support was clueless. Greg James greg@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (11/30/89)
In article <27801@dhw68k.cts.com< thecloud@dhw68k.cts.com (Ken McLeod) writes: <In article <20837@mimsy.umd.edu> spector@brillig.umd.edu.UUCP (Lee Spector) writes: <>The NEW problem (post "fix") is a rattling sound that continues for a long <>time - usually until the user explicitly causes a subsequent read/write to <>the disk. <> ... When this rattling sound is occurring <>there IS noticable slowdown of drive accesses. < < Oddly enough, the problem does seem to have "fixed itself" after approx. <1 month of hyperactive, rattling, performance-degrading accesses on my IIcx. Is that a month of high usage, or a month of only occasional use? <When I first got the drive (with the new ROM), the performance was horrible. <Now that the drive has been "broken in," the hyper-access problem seems to <have gone away. Possibly it takes a while for the lubricant to spread evenly, <or achieve some kind of magic viscosity level? I wonder if it would be a good idea for users who just got the fix to just let the system sit for a few days and "exercise" itself to get rid of the performance problem? <-ken Rodney -- "We may have come over here in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College
ALE101@PSUVM.BITNET (Allen Edmiston) (12/01/89)
In article <32331@auc.UUCP>, rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) says: >< Oddly enough, the problem does seem to have "fixed itself" after approx. ><1 month of hyperactive, rattling, performance-degrading accesses on my IIcx. > >I wonder if it would be a good idea for users who just got the fix to just >let the system sit for a few days and "exercise" itself to get rid of the >performance problem? ><-ken >Rodney how about running SCSI Evaluator on it? you can have that run a seek test timer which will do 10,000 random seeks. if this is true that after the drive has gotten "worn in" that it works better, you could run these seek timers and find out (and in the process give your drive a good workout) Adrian Sullivan axs@psuarch.bitnet ale101@psuvm.bitnet borrowed
jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey M White) (12/01/89)
In article <89334.141000ALE101@PSUVM.BITNET> ALE101@PSUVM.BITNET (Allen Edmiston) writes: >In article <32331@auc.UUCP>, rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) says: >>< Oddly enough, the problem does seem to have "fixed itself" after approx. >><1 month of hyperactive, rattling, performance-degrading accesses on my IIcx. >> >>I wonder if it would be a good idea for users who just got the fix to just >>let the system sit for a few days and "exercise" itself to get rid of the >>performance problem? >><-ken >>Rodney > My impression of this ROM fix was that it would exercise the heads when they would otherwise sit idle, but once a transfer was requested the drive would behave as usual (I believe a lot of larger drives sort of run continuous diagnostic exercises like this). Unless the exercise was CONSTANTLY being run and interfering (more like interleaving) with the transfer, I don't understand why throughput should be lower now. As far as having the drive "exercise" itself and get rid of the problem, I would think the exercise would always be run. I doubt they added a real time clock chip and counter to the drive, so that after so many hours of operation, it wouldn't do the tests anymore. Jeff White University of Pennsylvania jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
shulman@sdr.slb.com (Jeff Shulman) (12/01/89)
According to an Apple "Tech Tidbit" on the PROM exchange the Apple Technician is supposed to run the HD Diagnostics Utility to excersize the disk for 45 minutes distributing the lubricant. Otherwise the disk will try to do it over a period of days (weeks?) in normal use. Jeff SHULMAN@SDR.SLB.COM
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (12/02/89)
Why would they have to add a real time clock and counter to keep track of how long the drive has run? All it has to do is estimate run time by counting time through the idle loop and periodically accumulate this to a block on the disk. Tim Smith
macak@lakesys.lakesys.com (James Macak) (12/02/89)
In article <17524@netnews.upenn.edu> jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Jeffrey M White) writes: >In article <89334.141000ALE101@PSUVM.BITNET> ALE101@PSUVM.BITNET (Allen Edmiston) writes: >>In article <32331@auc.UUCP>, rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) says: >>>< Oddly enough, the problem does seem to have "fixed itself" after approx. >>><1 month of hyperactive, rattling, performance-degrading accesses on my IIcx. >>>I wonder if it would be a good idea for users who just got the fix to just >>>let the system sit for a few days and "exercise" itself to get rid of the >>>performance problem? >>><-ken >>>Rodney (Several lines deleted...) > As far as having the drive "exercise" itself and get rid of the problem, >I would think the exercise would always be run. I doubt they added a real >time clock chip and counter to the drive, so that after so many hours >of operation, it wouldn't do the tests anymore. Warning: the following is third hand (or worse) info but makes for interesting reading, if not an explanation of the above observation that the good old drive rattling stopped a month after the ROM fix was installed... I recently read a message on FidoNet's EchoMac about the ROM fix. It implied that the fix is not as "dumb" as Apple would have us believe. I thought the business about the drive "settling down" after a while post fix was a lot of hokum, but this makes some sense. The message claimed that the fix checks for abnormal piling up of the lubricant that is indicated by an off-track error reported by the drive. Given this indication, the fix causes repeated seeks at that location, spreading the lubricant. Eventually, when the lubricant is finally completely redistibuted uniformly (and stays that way) you get a "settling down" of the drive. Again, I am no drive expert and am only passing on some info that I found interesting. Take it or leave as as you wish... Jim -- macak@lakesys.lakesys.com (James Macak) << All my own opinions. >>
mjkobb@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Michael J Kobb) (12/02/89)
In article <1989Dec1.141819.453@sdr.slb.com> shulman@sdr.slb.com (Jeff Shulman) writes: > >According to an Apple "Tech Tidbit" on the PROM exchange the Apple Technician >is supposed to run the HD Diagnostics Utility to excersize the disk for >45 minutes distributing the lubricant. Otherwise the disk will try to do it >over a period of days (weeks?) in normal use. This (and the post that the drive looks for off-track errors and exercises the head about that area to distribute lubricant) makes enough sense to be plausible. So, let's assume for a second that it is true. Then, WHY THE HELL HASN'T APPLE ANNOUNCED IT???!?!!? If this is the case, I'd think that they would want to publicize, as widely as possible, that the drive will settle down after the lubricant is distributed, and they would want to tell people whose drives drives are having these spastic exercise troubles to run HD Diagnostics to exercise their drive for 45 minutes or so. Quantum should also be breaking their backs to clear their names. Apple and Quantum have both suffered severe erosion of consumer confidence through this fiasco. If it is the case that the PROM is smarter than previously believed, then would SOMEONE at Apple please tell us all? As it stands, Apple looks like they've kludged up a lemon to appease the public and hoard more money. --Mike Disclaimer: I think that disclaimers are an incredibly sad statement about our society. Nonetheless, nothing that I say can or should be construed as having been said by anyone. Ever.
hardie@Apple.COM (Robert H. Tankersley) (12/07/89)
I am not authorized to make any statements for Apple. But I work for them and might be able to shed some light. From what I understand the PROM fix is intelligent. When it performs the random seeks it monitors the resistance it encounters and adjusts force accordingly. Therefore as the lubricant smooths out random activity will decrease over time. When your dealer replaces the PROMs he is supposed to run a diagnostic that excersizes the drive and smooths out the lubricant. If this step is skipped the drive will sense more resistance and seek more until it is happy about the viscosity of the lubricant. This could explain increased activity for a short period of time. I also understand that tests have been performed that show that the new PROMs do not result in a performance change nor do they affect durability. This is what I have heard from Apple. But I have not been involved in any testing or development of the fix. I'm just a simple field person. Hardie Tankersley hardie@apple.com Assosciate Systems Engineer Apple Atlanta Again: The above statements are not Apple's, they're mine.
espen@well.UUCP (Peter Espen) (12/08/89)
For anyone's information, the shareware program 'SCSI Evaluator' has a very intensive seek test that really exercises the (&#@)& out of the drive. I've done this seek test probably 20 times now over a period of a week, and my 80 meg Quantum with the new ROM seems to be doing it's flipped out exercise routines less often. The performance degrading random routines do keep returning, however, and I then need to do another seek test in order to get some hard drive relief. Peter Espen espen@well
espen@well.UUCP (Peter Espen) (12/10/89)
In article <37039@apple.Apple.COM>, hardie@Apple.COM (Robert H. Tankersley) writes: > > I am not authorized to make any statements for Apple. But I work for them > and might be able to shed some light. > > > I also understand that tests have been performed that show that the new PROMs > do not result in a performance change nor do they affect durability. > > This is what I have heard from Apple. But I have not been involved in any > testing or development of the fix. I'm just a simple field person. > WOW!! You mean Apple even lies to it's own employees!!! The new ROM certainly DOES degrade performance of th Quantum drive! I've had the new ROM installed on my Quantum 80 meg for 3 months now. The drive is still doing exercise routines at random times. The info in the following graph was generated by "SCSI Evaluator 1.01" and clearly shows the amount of performance degradation that takes place when my 80 Meg Quantum with the new ROMS is doing it's "exercise routines". The normal data was taken when the drive was acting normally, and the degraded data was generated while the new ROM routines were taking place. Remember that these exercise routines occur at random times, and can sometimes go for a long time. NICE "FIX", HUH!!! View the following graph using Monaco 9 point...... 20000 |####### | # # = NORMAL PERFORMANCE 18000 | # * = DEGRADED PERFORMANCE | # 16000 | # VERTICAL SCALE = KBITS/SEC | # 14000 | # HORIZ. SCALE = TRANSFER SIZE (K) | # 12000 | # | # 10000 | # | # 8000 | # | # 6000 | ################################## | 4000 | | 2000 | *********************************************** |*** |____________________________________________________ 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 This should make things pretty clear!! Peter Espen espen@well
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/10/89)
>NICE FIX, HUH? Nice fix indeed, considering the consequences of not having the fix. I can't explain why you're having the access slowdown problems, but as I was explained it, the "ramdom seeking" only happens when the read/write head senses degraded seek time based on the viscosity of the internal lubricant. Otherwise, it should operate normally. And Apple corporate may not tell us everything, but I haven't heard of situtations in which they've lied to us. To do that would be a great breach of trust to us. Apple is not an ordinary company when it comes to sensitive information, and Apple employees aren't typical either. -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: Segmentation Fault: Core Dumped. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^