paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) (10/18/88)
Immediately after noticing the new Rodime installer/driver software
showed up on the net, I downloaded the program and installed
it on my Rodime 45Mb drive for my SE. I formatted the driving using
an 1:1 interleave (that's what the program advised me to do).
I created four partitions and went thru the hours long process
of reinstalling all software.
Then I ran Disktimer II, which showed me shocking results. The drive's
writing performance decreased dramatically. Now: >660 (whereas
the Dataframe list shows something like 55). I knew the Rodime
was slower, even with the older driver, but this is terrible...
Anybody similar experiences? Is it just Disktimer or is it really
the driver? I hate to go thru the entire process of installing
the driver with a lower interleave...
[wonder if anybody will notice this message between the next-bombardment]
...
--
Paul Molenaar
"Just checking the walls"
- Basil Fawlty -dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) (10/20/88)
In article <431@nikhefk.UUCP> paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) writes: > Immediately after noticing the new Rodime installer/driver software > showed up on the net, I downloaded the program and installed > it on my Rodime 45Mb drive for my SE. I formatted the driving using > an 1:1 interleave (that's what the program advised me to do). > I created four partitions and went thru the hours long process > of reinstalling all software. > > Then I ran Disktimer II, which showed me shocking results. The drive's > writing performance decreased dramatically. Now: >660 (whereas > the Dataframe list shows something like 55). I knew the Rodime > was slower, even with the older driver, but this is terrible... The figure you're seeing (660 vs. 55) is strong evidence that the drive is too fast for the SE at a 1:1 interleave... it's missing sectors on every read, and is probably taking 12 revolutions to transfer the data rather than 1. I'm rather surprised that the formatter recommended a 1:1 interleave for a drive on an SE. From what I understand, only a very slow drive can be run at 1:1 on an SE without sectors being missed. Do you recall what the formatter said was the actual interleave on the disk _before_ you reformatted? I'd bet fairly heavily that the old Rodime formatter had laid down a 2:1 interleave. I reformatted the 100-meg Rodime on my Mac II using the new driver; the DiskTimer II results (40/40/15) were within 1 point each of the old values. So, I don't think there's anything in particular wrong with the driver. I suggest that you reformat at a 2:1 interleave, and then run DiskTimer II before restoring the whole drive. You'll almost certainly find that the drive's performance has returned to normal. -- Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805 USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303 UUCP: ...!{ames,sun,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@sun.com, ...@uunet.uu.net
martin@home.csc.ti.com (Steven Martin) (10/20/88)
In article <431@nikhefk.UUCP> paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) writes: > Immediately after noticing the new Rodime installer/driver software > showed up on the net, I downloaded the program and installed > it on my Rodime 45Mb drive for my SE. I formatted the driving using > an 1:1 interleave (that's what the program advised me to do). > I created four partitions and went thru the hours long process > of reinstalling all software. > > Then I ran Disktimer II, which showed me shocking results. The drive's > writing performance decreased dramatically. Now: >660 (whereas > the Dataframe list shows something like 55). I knew the Rodime > was slower, even with the older driver, but this is terrible... I'm copying this off of the screen from the Rodime Installer Utility that I downloaded. Optimum Interleave Ratios: Macintosh II 1:1 Macintosh SE 2:1 Macintosh Plus 3:1 Methinks you read incorrectly. Steve Martin USENET: {ctvax,im4u,texsun,rice}!ti-csl!martin GENIE: S.MARTIN8 PHONE: (214)-995-5919, 404-1061 What I am is what I am, are you what you are or what? - Edie Brickell & THE New Bohemians
billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) (10/21/88)
From article <431@nikhefk.UUCP>, by paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar): > Immediately after noticing the new Rodime installer/driver software > showed up on the net, I downloaded the program and installed > it on my Rodime 45Mb drive for my SE. I formatted the driving using > an 1:1 interleave (that's what the program advised me to do). > I created four partitions and went thru the hours long process > of reinstalling all software. > > Then I ran Disktimer II, which showed me shocking results. The drive's > writing performance decreased dramatically. Now: >660 (whereas > the Dataframe list shows something like 55). I knew the Rodime > was slower, even with the older driver, but this is terrible... > > Anybody similar experiences? Is it just Disktimer or is it really > the driver? I hate to go thru the entire process of installing > the driver with a lower interleave... > > [wonder if anybody will notice this message between the next-bombardment] > ... > -- > Paul Molenaar > > "Just checking the walls" > - Basil Fawlty - Don;t use 1:1 on anything slower than 16Mhz. Steve Bollinger Unifersity of Michigan billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu
paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) (10/21/88)
In article <12214@coherent.com> dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: #In article <431@nikhefk.UUCP> paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) writes: #> Then I ran Disktimer II, which showed me shocking results. The drive's #> writing performance decreased dramatically. Now: >660 (whereas #> the Dataframe list shows something like 55). I knew the Rodime #> was slower, even with the older driver, but this is terrible... # #The figure you're seeing (660 vs. 55) is strong evidence that the drive #is too fast for the SE at a 1:1 interleave... it's missing sectors on #every read, and is probably taking 12 revolutions to transfer the data #rather than 1. # #I'm rather surprised that the formatter recommended a 1:1 interleave #for a drive on an SE. From what I understand, only a very slow drive #can be run at 1:1 on an SE without sectors being missed. Do you recall #what the formatter said was the actual interleave on the disk _before_ #you reformatted? I'd bet fairly heavily that the old Rodime formatter #had laid down a 2:1 interleave. # That's true. It was formatted at 2:1 interleave before I took the installer's advice. Maybe you should give the people at Rodime a call about this. (it's too far away for me to call them... I'd have to call in the middle of the night. I'm dead positive it advised me to format at 1:1. PS Thanks for the upload! . . . Paul Molenaar "Just checking the walls" - Basil Fawlty - -- Paul Molenaar "Just checking the walls" - Basil Fawlty -
cej@ll1a.UUCP (Jones) (10/22/88)
In article <431@nikhefk.UUCP>, paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) writes: > I formatted the drive (Rodime 45Mb - SE) using an 1:1 interleave > (that's what the program advised me to do). Then I ran Disktimer II, > which showed me shocking results. The drive's writing performance > decreased dramatically. Now: >660 (whereas the Dataframe list > shows something like 55). [...] I hate to go thru the entire > process of installing the driver with a lower interleave... > Paul Molenaar Sorry to say it, but reformatting the drive is what you will have to do. I'm not sure why the program suggested 1:1 for the format on a SE, but it shouldn't have. (For those who haven't used it, the Rodime installer "suggests" an interleave.) There is a small "table" on the display that indicates that the Mac II interleave is 1:1, the SE interleave is 1:2, and the Plus interleave is 1:3. In short; you're right, it is slower. You are now getting the worst performance possible from your drive. ...att!ll1a!cej Llewellyn Jones [Just me, not AT&T] cej@ll1a.ATT.COM They have door-to-door car salesmen in Japan.
paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) (10/22/88)
In article <61460@ti-csl.CSNET> martin@home.UUCP (Steven Martin) writes:
#I'm copying this off of the screen from the Rodime Installer Utility
#that I downloaded.
#
#Optimum Interleave Ratios:
#
# Macintosh II 1:1
# Macintosh SE 2:1
# Macintosh Plus 3:1
#
#Methinks you read incorrectly.
#
#Steve Martin USENET: {ctvax,im4u,texsun,rice}!ti-csl!martin
I stopped reading the news, launched the Rodime Utility and read it again..
I read correctly (Mac II 1:1, Mac SE 1:1, Mac Plus 2:1) but noticed
something peculiar. It 'recognized' my drive as a R0300S, which I know
it isn't. It's something like 450, really. It read the drive's size
correctly, though.
Somehow things got mixed up. I don't know why it shows the wrong disktype,
but this probably explains why it gave me the wrong interleave to use.
Thanx to you all for looking into it. I'll spend my weekend
reformatting and installing the drive again :(
Cheers!..
Paul Molenaar
"Just checking the walls"
- Basil Fawlty -
--
Paul Molenaar
"Just checking the walls"
- Basil Fawlty -