asv@gaboon.UUCP (Stan Voket) (06/10/89)
Could some kind reseller please steer me to their favorite WD1007WA2 ESDI controller distributor. Please reply by e-mail. Thanks in advance! +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | - Stan Voket, asv@gaboon Land Line: (203) 746-4489 TELEX 4996516 - | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | - Stan Voket, asv@gaboon Land Line: (203) 746-4489 TELEX 4996516 - | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (06/13/89)
In article <3072@gaboon.UUCP> asv@gaboon.UUCP (Stan Voket) writes: >Could some kind reseller please steer me to their favorite WD1007WA2 >ESDI controller distributor. Please reply by e-mail. > >Thanks in advance! > WD has (at least) two versions of their 1007 ESDI controller; one of them is only capable of a 2:1 interleave and should be avoided if at all possible. The later version is alleged to be capable of 1:1 interleave but I haven't evaluated one to verify this. I'll be receiving an Everex STEP/33 soon with an Adaptec ESDI card, and a DTK (or DTC?) as well for comparison. When I've run these two through their paces I'll post an update. kEITHe
erik@mpx2.mpx.com (Erik Murrey) (06/19/89)
In article <3611@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >If the BIOS is enabled, you are normally running at 34 sectors per track, >with the 35th being set up as "sector 0". The controller is smart enough to >reformat a track so that a defect (if it occurs) is in sector zero, thus >making it invisible. This only works if there is ONE defect in a given >track. > But, can the WD1007 run with 36 sectors/track? My adaptek can, and it gives me that much more room on my disk. If the WD board forces 34 or 35 secs, and always uses a 36th for bad tracking, then I loose 1/36th of my space. This is nonsense. Why must they waste that much space when most OS-es can do their own bad track managing. I want to switch to a track buffered ESDI controller that supports 1:1 and 36 secs. Any ideas? My adaptek (2320) doesn't have a track buffer, and it can't keep up with 1:1 with SCO controlling it... ... Erik -- Erik Murrey /| // /~~~~/ | / MPX Data Systems, Inc. / | / / /____/ |/ erik@mpx.com / / / / /| Data Systems, Inc. {vu-vlsi, bpa, cbmvax}!mpx1!erik / / / / |====================
bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) (06/26/89)
From article <3611@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, by karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger): > ...This can be VERY useful if your > operating system will not install without an exact match in the ROM drive > tables, as these tables will not go out beyond 1024 cyls. > ... > IF this happens, you will need to disable the onboard BIOS > completely, although you can do it AFTER formatting (providing your OS can > handle > 1024 cyl drives; Xenix can do this) and still get what appears to > be an error-free device. > > Adaptec has been problematical for me in the past. DTC, which also makes > ESDI boards, hasn't managed to get one here for evaluation yet, so I have no > idea what their boards are like. I have seen a very few commercial BIOS tables include drive types with cylinder counts greater than 1024. I do not have names readily available. These make life so much easier, since many low-level formatting routines will not format > 1024 cylinders unless they see a drive table entry with a cylinder count greater than 1024. Big AAARRGHH! I am glad to see someone else acknowledge that Xenix can handle big drives. Thank you. If you are waiting for DTC to actually ship a reported product, I hope you have tickets for a 6-month cruise around the world--I mean, you might as well enjoy the wait!! -- Bote uunet!cyclops!csense!bote {mimsy,sundc}!{prometheus,hqda-ai}!media!cyclops!csense!bote
randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) (07/22/89)
In article <3611@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > In article <3607@ddsw1.MCS.COM> nvk@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Norman Kohn) writes: > > > >I've heard that the 1:1 is not yet available, but should be soon. > > Not true. > > The WD1007 has several set-ups available. It supports 1:1 interleave, first > > [... many other true comments deleted for brevity ...] > > If you turn OFF translation and the BIOS, you need an external format > program. Western Digital has utilities that are really marvelous with their controllers. The wd1006v, wd1007a and wd1007v are supported. The functions outlined by Karl and many others, including the ST506 spoofing, 1:1 interleave, 1:3 interleave, overcoming > 1024 cylinder OS limitations, etc. are included in the utility kit. These utilities only work with the WD controllers. WD has a public access BBS in Detroit at 1-313-262-1481 that I have not used. My sources tell me this package as well as ROM updates and misc. marketing info is available. I don't even know the parity or baud bunk, perhaps some other netters do. Has anyone used the wd1008 board? I understand it is 15Mb/sec and is a screamer. Since they always talk to me in DOS terms, I wonder if there are any problems with the variety of Unix types out there. > I LIKE this controller; it works great, and is very fast. Me too. Now if I only had more memory so rnews and kin wouldn't page my disk to death, I'd be really happy. Ok, happier. Cheers! - randy Usenet: randy@rls.uucp Bangpath: ...<backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy Internet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
nvk@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Norman Kohn) (07/22/89)
In article <5343@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: >WD has (at least) two versions of their 1007 ESDI controller; one of >them is only capable of a 2:1 interleave and should be avoided if at >all possible. The later version is alleged to be capable of 1:1 >interleave but I haven't evaluated one to verify this. I've heard that the 1:1 is not yet available, but should be soon. I've also been told, however, that WD's ESDI card gives 1/35 fewer sectors than Adaptek's, presumably because it allocates one alternate sector per track (for bad sectors found at format time) and that this feature cannot be disabled. Adaptek's is allegedly better for unix. On the other hand, if unix 386 only allows a fixed number of bad sectors (64 in uport) and an entire track is bad somewhere, with large hard drives the table could fill up pretty quickly. -- Norman Kohn | ...ddsw1!nvk!norman Chicago, Il. | days/ans svc: (312) 650-6840 | eves: (312) 373-0564
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (07/22/89)
In article <3607@ddsw1.MCS.COM> nvk@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Norman Kohn) writes: >In article <5343@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: >>WD has (at least) two versions of their 1007 ESDI controller; one of >>them is only capable of a 2:1 interleave and should be avoided if at >>all possible. The later version is alleged to be capable of 1:1 >>interleave but I haven't evaluated one to verify this. >I've heard that the 1:1 is not yet available, but should be soon. >I've also been told, however, that WD's ESDI card gives 1/35 fewer >sectors than Adaptek's, presumably because it allocates one alternate >sector per track (for bad sectors found at format time) and that this >feature cannot be disabled. Adaptek's is allegedly better for unix. Not true. The WD1007 has several set-ups available. It supports 1:1 interleave, first off. Secondly, you have a choice of translation mode enabled or disabled, and a choice of three (usually) translation settings. There are some catches though, which you need to be aware of: If you turn OFF translation and the BIOS, you need an external format program. This is not normally a problem, and it will allow you to use the full 35 sectors per track. HOWEVER -- your operating system must be able to deal with this, and map out the defects. Many cannot do this right (386/ix comes immediately to mind :-() If the BIOS is enabled, you are normally running at 34 sectors per track, with the 35th being set up as "sector 0". The controller is smart enough to reformat a track so that a defect (if it occurs) is in sector zero, thus making it invisible. This only works if there is ONE defect in a given track. The BIOS also has a mode to spoof the drive into looking like it has less than 1024 cylinders, even when it does not. This can be VERY useful if your operating system will not install without an exact match in the ROM drive tables, as these tables will not go out beyond 1024 cyls. Lastly, be aware that the BIOS sometimes decides to write to the CMOS memory on the system. This can cause problems with machines that have an "extended CMOS" setup, allowing changes to things like shadow RAM and I/O speeds. You'll know if this is happening because you'll get checksum errors in your CMOS (grrrrr). IF this happens, you will need to disable the onboard BIOS completely, although you can do it AFTER formatting (providing your OS can handle > 1024 cyl drives; Xenix can do this) and still get what appears to be an error-free device. >On the other hand, if unix 386 only allows a fixed number of bad sectors >(64 in uport) and an entire track is bad somewhere, with large >hard drives the table could fill up pretty quickly. This is true; you can get around this by having what appears to be a "flaw free" disk easily..... I LIKE this controller; it works great, and is very fast. Adaptec has been problematical for me in the past. DTC, which also makes ESDI boards, hasn't managed to get one here for evaluation yet, so I have no idea what their boards are like. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"