cook@gaia.UUCP (Forrest Cook) (05/21/88)
Has anybody out there had any expirience making a Seagate ST-4096
70Mb drive work under Microport unix? This drive has 9 heads and
I recall hearing that 8 heads is the max under Microport.
--
Forrest Cook
{husc6 | rutgers | ames | gatech}!ncar!gaia!cook
{uunet | ucbvax | allegra | cbosgd}!nbires!gaia!cookhack@bellboy.UUCP (Greg Hackney) (05/21/88)
In article <354@gaia.UUCP> cook@gaia.UUCP writes: >Has anybody out there had any expirience making a Seagate ST-4096 >70Mb drive work under Microport unix? This drive has 9 heads and >I recall hearing that 8 heads is the max under Microport. Steve Nuchia (steve@nuchat) has one on his AT. I read the same thing in my 386 documents, and was curious, since I am successfully running an ST-4096 on 386 uPort. However, I did low level it with the Seagate DM formatter (which someone just posted a claim that this is a questionable practice). BTW, it formats to 80MB, not 70MB. I used the standard default partition sizes (with no DOS partition), and it comes out to: swap 18664 blocks root 27522 blocks usr 110312 blocks -- Greg
root@uwspan.UUCP (Sue Peru Sr.) (05/22/88)
+---- cook@gaia.UUCP (Forrest Cook) writes in <354@gaia.UUCP> ---- | Has anybody out there had any expirience making a Seagate ST-4096 | 70Mb drive work under Microport unix? This drive has 9 heads and | I recall hearing that 8 heads is the max under Microport. only with version 1.36 If you have 2.2 or 2.3 (V/AT 286) it will work. I am currently using drives with 6,8,9, and 15 heads with no problems. -John -- Comp.Unix.Microport is now unmoderated! Use at your own risk :-)
scott@cdp.UUCP (05/26/88)
ST-4096 works fine for me on V/386 2.2, with either MS-DOS hardprep or V/386 diskadd low-level formatting. -scott
steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) (06/02/88)
From article <1036@bellboy.UUCP>, by hack@bellboy.UUCP (Greg Hackney): > In article <354@gaia.UUCP> cook@gaia.UUCP writes: >>Has anybody out there had any expirience making a Seagate ST-4096 > Steve Nuchia (steve@nuchat) has one on his AT. Well, I used to .... That 4096 is the reason nuchat (my long-suffering 286) was down all last week. I don't know whether an incipient electronic failure was the cause of my seek errors all along or if Microbug's software (dual disk bug) caused the hardware failure, or if maybe there were two different problems all along. Anyway, the 4096 is often involved when people are having the dual-disk problem, but it isn't the only drive the problem has been seen on. I got just over a year of 24-hour multi-neighbor usenet + 2-line BBS use out of it (head moving pretty much continuously more often than not) and there is still some hope of it being repaired for less than the replacement cost. > However, I did low level it with the Seagate DM formatter (which > someone just posted a claim that this is a questionable practice). I missed the claim - using a DOS disk formatter was the only way to make it work - Microbug's won't even come close. You may also need to have a correct entry in your ROMS - they claim to have fixed the problem, but in a quick trial I wasn't able to make my system boot from the 4096 with standard roms. It will work as a second drive without being in the rom, though. The 9-headedness isn't too much of a problem if you use a controller that's prepared for it; I've never had a chance to use anything but the WD1003-WA2. Anyone heard anything about support for RLL? SCSI? How about controllers that fake 17 sectors (remapping) with RLL? Failing that, what about MFM 17-sector drives with >100Mb capacity? (dream on, I know, but I just had to ask :-) steve -- Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be (713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947
ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (06/02/88)
In my experience, Seagate drives should be avoided at all costs. This is
a simple case of you get what you pay for; Seagates are the cheapest in
price and the lowest in quality.
In my last job, we had 3 Seagates drives die no more than 3 months after we
got them. Then we had 4 seagates fail COMPSURF. Note that these were the
only Seagates we had.
I'm sure someone out there will flame back and say that they have this
Seagate that has run 24-hours a day for 5 years. That person got lucky.
The hard disk is the most important part of a Unix system. Spend a few
bucks to get one that wont die...
BTW: CDC, Fujitsu and Hitachi make (in my opinion) the best hard drives.
ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs,
ken@gatech.edu inhp4, masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl,
ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet unmvax, ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
soon to be open: ...!gatech!spooge!ken (finally ;'})james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (06/03/88)
IN article <1031@nuchat.UUCP>, steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) wrote: > Anyone heard anything about support for RLL? SCSI? How about controllers > that fake 17 sectors (remapping) with RLL? Failing that, what about > MFM 17-sector drives with >100Mb capacity? (dream on, I know, but I > just had to ask :-) Well, as I've said several times before, the WD1007/WA2 fakes 17 sectors very nicely with my ESDI 130meg CDC drive. I'm going to make a bid on a second drive tomorrow, giving a total of 260meg on the system if I buy it. This is with the old hd.o for unix/386. If anyone knows of an RLL controller that fakes 17 sec/trk I'd like to hear about it. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746