ronb@otc.otca.oz (Ron Barrett) (11/15/89)
Is anyone using a WD1007 with a MAXTOR XT4170 hard disk? Im using it in an AST
386 running XENIX 2.3.1. The basic problem is that the system locks up whilst
accessing the harddisk. Apparently the WD ESDI controller doesn't work all that
well with a hard disk with more than 1024 cyclinders.
The dealer told me about a program called SpeedStore from Storage Dimension
that is supposed to fix the problem?
Has anyone heard of this S/W?, will it fix the problem? are they any other work
arounds?
Thanks in advance,
Ron Barrett
Network R&D
|||| OTC ||
ACSnet: ronb@otc.oz UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.oz!ronb
PHONE: +61 2 287 4834 FAX: +61 2 287 4990
MAIL: OTC, GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, Australiarandy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) (11/16/89)
In article <1187@otc.otca.oz>, ronb@otc.otca.oz (Ron Barrett) writes: > Is anyone using a WD1007 with a MAXTOR XT4170 hard disk? Im using it > in an AST 386 running XENIX 2.3.1. I have this exact configuration except System V on an Intel 386. It works fine. Actually excellent, and has done so since last January. > The basic problem is that the system locks up whilst accessing the > harddisk. Apparently the WD ESDI controller doesn't work all that > well with a hard disk with more than 1024 cyclinders. Well, thats totally inaccurate. The WD-1007 ESDI supports *much* larger drives than the puny 180MB, 14ms Maxtor. I don't know how long you've had this configuration or if it has been up more than a few minutes. I suspect the latter and think you tried to out-think the controller. In my first run-in, I did. With the WD-1007 too much knowledge is dangerous. You want to let the controller BIOS do the configuration and the formatting. The easiest way I found was to boot Dos from a flop and use debug. With debug you; debug - G=C800:5 and you will be in touch with the (menu driven) gods of the controller. I presume you've already been there. Apparently you pumped the actual heads, cylinders and sectors/track in the configuration. This is death. The way the WD-1007 family works is they compute the offset into extended ranges of the disk. I do not understand is how do all the blocks then appear with chkdsk or df -t? Anyway, just take the default conflaguration which will appear strange and totally wrong. As I recall, there are three choices. One is for 17 sectors/track (spt), 34 spt and 63 spt. The head count will be many times more than true and the spt and cylinders way off. Thats good. Somehow by multiplying them together you get the actual surface area equivalence for the drive. For a drive with more than 1024 cylinders (as is XT4170E) use the selection with 63 sectors/track. The real bummer is you have to *manually* enter all the defect list. Grrrr. WD says they will fix this eventually. It's really unthinkable they didn't provide that from day one. Oh well. > The dealer told me about a program called SpeedStore from Storage > Dimension that is supposed to fix the problem? *Dos dealer flame ON* This is typical of most PC dealers. They know hardware (sort of) and Dos. The product they recommended to you runs under Dos and has drivers for Dos to access the extended range that only Dos can't reach. There will be a *mint* to be made in Unix support because these dealers are too stoopid (intentional spelling) to get any Unix experience. Even rudimentary knowledge that Dos crap don't run under Unix. Duh. *Dos dealer flame OFF* Maybe I had too much coffee today.:-} Well, hope this helps, Ron and anyone else suffering this problem as I've seen a number of very astute individuals making this apparently common mistake. Right, Bill? :-) Cheers! - randy Usenet: randy@rls.uucp Bangpath: ...<backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy Internet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/20/89)
In article <1187@otc.otca.oz> ronb@otc.otca.oz (Ron Barrett) writes: >Is anyone using a WD1007 with a MAXTOR XT4170 hard disk? Im using it in an AST >386 running XENIX 2.3.1. The basic problem is that the system locks up whilst >accessing the harddisk. Apparently the WD ESDI controller doesn't work all that >well with a hard disk with more than 1024 cyclinders. Yep. With 2.3.1 this can happen. But, you did give incomplete information. Which WD1007 board do you have? The suffix on the part number is <very> important. >The dealer told me about a program called SpeedStore from Storage Dimension >that is supposed to fix the problem? SpeedStore won't work. Updating to 2.3.2 OR getting a SLS patch from SCO will fix the problem. See your dealer. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/24/89)
In article <10373@rls.UUCP> randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) writes: (formatting instructions)... >debug >- G=C800:5 Unless you're set up for a secondary ROM entry (which is REAL important if you have a VGA card), in which case it's CC00:5. >Anyway, just take the default conflaguration which will appear strange >and totally wrong. As I recall, there are three choices. One is for >17 sectors/track (spt), 34 spt and 63 spt. The head count will be many >times more than true and the spt and cylinders way off. Thats good. You can only do this after physically formatting the drive. >Somehow by multiplying them together you get the actual surface area >equivalence for the drive. For a drive with more than 1024 cylinders >(as is XT4170E) use the selection with 63 sectors/track. NO! Doing that makes the system quite a bit slower than if you leave it at the real physical parameters! You see, the controller has to remapping if you set things up like that. The WD1007-SE2 can also set up for 36 sectors and still run 1:1 interleave, while the WD1007-WA2 can only do 35 sectors if you want 1:1, not to mention that the SE2 board will also run 15Mhz (760MB) drives at full rated speed. >The real bummer is you have to *manually* enter all the defect list. >Grrrr. WD says they will fix this eventually. It's really unthinkable >they didn't provide that from day one. Oh well. The SE2 doesn't do this; it reads the defect list from the drive and ALSO allows you to enter manual defects as well. As an aside, the ACB2322-16 (Adaptec) board was just received here. It also runs 15Mhz drives. Outside of a couple of strange messages during formatting (which I cannot explain) it seems to work just about as well as the WD1007 series. We're still going to stick with the WD1007, as it gives the same performance, doesn't print strange messages that I don't have explanations for, and is a little cheaper to boot. Nonetheless, the ACB is a nice controller too, and should work equally well. Make sure you get the 2322-16; the 2322-8 isn't as fast and doesn't have as much read-ahead buffering onboard. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) (11/25/89)
For openers, my comments were directed to the WD1007-WA2 and the XT4170-E. In article <1989Nov24.025335.20233@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > In article <10373@rls.UUCP> randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) writes: > (formatting instructions)... > >> debug >> - G=C800:5 > > Unless you're set up for a secondary ROM entry (which is REAL important if > you have a VGA card), in which case it's CC00:5. Granted. Presumably, if you set up such a configuration, you would be aware of the differing address requirements of unique setups. The address C800:5 is by and large more likely. >> Anyway, just take the default conflaguration which will appear strange >> and totally wrong. As I recall, there are three choices. One is for >> 17 sectors/track (spt), 34 spt and 63 spt. The head count will be many >> times more than true and the spt and cylinders way off. Thats good. > > You can only do this after physically formatting the drive. This *is* a physical format. In fact it is *the only* way to do a low level format via the WD1007-WA2. I don't understand your definition of "physical", but I still think my comments were correct. >> Somehow by multiplying them together you get the actual surface area >> equivalence for the drive. For a drive with more than 1024 cylinders >> (as is XT4170E) use the selection with 63 sectors/track. > > NO! Doing that makes the system quite a bit slower than if you leave it at > the real physical parameters! You see, the controller has to remapping if > you set things up like that. But Karl, that is the function of the WD1007-WA2. Dos and earlier versions of Unix cannot (with native drivers) access those extended address ranges. Since all the computing and remapping is done on the controller, this should not be slower. If your system can directly address these drives, then more power to you. I too would use direct addressing if it were possible, but alas it is not here. I would venture most cannot and I am not aware of any that do. I'd love to hear (by e-mail) of some that do. > The WD1007-SE2 can also set up for 36 sectors and still run 1:1 interleave, > while the WD1007-WA2 can only do 35 sectors if you want 1:1, not to mention > that the SE2 board will also run 15Mhz (760MB) drives at full rated speed. > >> The real bummer is you have to *manually* enter all the defect list. >> Grrrr. WD says they will fix this eventually. It's really unthinkable >> they didn't provide that from day one. Oh well. > > The SE2 doesn't do this; it reads the defect list from the drive and ALSO > allows you to enter manual defects as well. Well, we're talking about two different controllers in the same line and I cannot speak to the SE2. Your corrections really apply to the SE2 and it is my fault for not considering that controller in making my comments. However Karl, all my instructions come from TFM or my own experience so you are simply refuting Western Digitals manuals and reccommendations. As I said before, this is *exactly* what I am running under Microport v3.0e and *no* problems with performance or reliability have occurred. Cheers! - randy Usenet: randy@rls.uucp Bangpath: ...<backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy Internet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) (11/25/89)
In article <10375@rls.UUCP> randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) writes: >In article <1989Nov24.025335.20233@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >> NO! Doing that makes the system quite a bit slower than if you leave it at >> the real physical parameters! You see, the controller has to remapping if >> you set things up like that. >But Karl, that is the function of the WD1007-WA2. Dos and earlier versions >of Unix cannot (with native drivers) access those extended address ranges. >Since all the computing and remapping is done on the controller, this >should not be slower. Even if translation could be done instaneously, disk performance will be seriously impaired. The disk arm scheduling algorithm in the device driver has to know about the physical disk geometry for optimum performance. Typically the scheduling algorithm assumes that track n is next to tracks n-1 and n+1. A translating controller invalidates this assumption. --jtc -- J.T. Conklin ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc, jtc@wimsey.bc.ca
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/28/89)
In article <10375@rls.UUCP> randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) writes: > >For openers, my comments were directed to the WD1007-WA2 and the XT4170-E. True... and mine were more towards it's replacement, the SE2. >> Unless you're set up for a secondary ROM entry (which is REAL important if >> you have a VGA card), in which case it's CC00:5. > >Granted. Presumably, if you set up such a configuration, you would be >aware of the differing address requirements of unique setups. The address >C800:5 is by and large more likely. Not unless you run monochrome monitors! Most color systems will be using CC00:5..... >>> Somehow by multiplying them together you get the actual surface area >>> equivalence for the drive. For a drive with more than 1024 cylinders >>> (as is XT4170E) use the selection with 63 sectors/track. >> >> NO! Doing that makes the system quite a bit slower than if you leave it at >> the real physical parameters! You see, the controller has to remapping if >> you set things up like that. > >But Karl, that is the function of the WD1007-WA2. Dos and earlier versions >of Unix cannot (with native drivers) access those extended address ranges. >Since all the computing and remapping is done on the controller, this >should not be slower. SCO Xenix/Unix, ISC 2.x, & AT&T 3.2 can all deal with > 1024 cylinders. And if you can, you should use them. SCO can even have a DOS partition on a drive like this, as long as the DOS partition lives within the first 1024 cylinders on the disk. The controller WILL remap the ROM entries to support this configuration as well. SCO Unix/Xenix finds the correct parameters, as does ISC. >If your system can directly address these drives, then more power to you. >I too would use direct addressing if it were possible, but alas it is not >here. I would venture most cannot and I am not aware of any that do. I'd >love to hear (by e-mail) of some that do. See above. Most modern Unixen can work, and work best, in native mode. >> The WD1007-SE2 can also set up for 36 sectors and still run 1:1 interleave, >> while the WD1007-WA2 can only do 35 sectors if you want 1:1, not to mention >> that the SE2 board will also run 15Mhz (760MB) drives at full rated speed. >> >>> The real bummer is you have to *manually* enter all the defect list. >>> Grrrr. WD says they will fix this eventually. It's really unthinkable >>> they didn't provide that from day one. Oh well. >> >> The SE2 doesn't do this; it reads the defect list from the drive and ALSO >> allows you to enter manual defects as well. > >Well, we're talking about two different controllers in the same line and I >cannot speak to the SE2. Your corrections really apply to the SE2 and it >is my fault for not considering that controller in making my comments. >However Karl, all my instructions come from TFM or my own experience so you >are simply refuting Western Digitals manuals and reccommendations. TFM and WD's recommendations don't have anything to do with Unix - they're all oriented for MSDOS and Novell Netware people. For those users the recommendations are correct. For the Unix users they are not terribly wrong, but they do lead to lower performance than you could obtain otherwise. The other problem with the "remapping" is that some OS versions may attempt, now or in the future, to do some form of cylinder grouping on files. You are going to find your performance lowered significantly if you run remapped and don't have to, since what the system thinks defines a cylinder is not in reality a single disk cylinder anymore. >As I said before, this is *exactly* what I am running under Microport v3.0e >and *no* problems with performance or reliability have occurred. You won't see a reliability problem. Performance is subjective, at least until you see one running optioned the other way. I've seen some difference between remap/noremap options; it ends up being about 15% at the filesystem level. Nothing spectacular, but nothing to sneeze at either. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"