keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (08/16/88)
In article <3648@bsu-cs.UUCP> tekgvs!tekcrl!tektronix!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!rutgers!iuvax!bsu-cs!ibmbin kenns@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Kenn Stump) writes: >When run, spintest accesses your hard-drive, and show the following >information: > >SpinTesting... > > 4 : revolutions to read a track, >192,000 : bytes transferred per second. > >At least that's what it showed for my hard-drive. > There is a version 1.2 of spintest which is more accurate than whatever the (unidentified) version was/is. It is also larger (over 3 kbytes) because a lot more verbiage is included explaining interleave and interleave-testing. I personally formatted a drive at 2:1 interleave, ran the earlier spintest and was told it was a 3:1 interleave. Version 1.2 reported the correct 2:1 interleave factor. By the Way - spintest doesn't report the interleave factor for my CDC Wren IV SCSI drive, but it does report the bytes transferred per second: 1044,480 (!). keith
jeff@drexel.UUCP (Jeff White) (08/17/88)
In article <3815@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM>, keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: > There is a version 1.2 of spintest which is more accurate than > whatever the (unidentified) version was/is. It is also larger (over > 3 kbytes) because a lot more verbiage is included explaining > interleave and interleave-testing. > > keith The summary says it all - how about posting the newer version? Jeff White Drexel University - ECE Dept. rutgers!bpa!drexel!jeff
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (08/18/88)
In article <3815@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: <In article <3648@bsu-cs.UUCP> tekgvs!tekcrl!tektronix!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!rutgers!iuvax!bsu-cs!ibmbin kenns@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Kenn Stump) writes: <>When run, spintest accesses your hard-drive, and show the following <>information: <> <>SpinTesting... <> <> 4 : revolutions to read a track, <>192,000 : bytes transferred per second. <> <>At least that's what it showed for my hard-drive. <> <There is a version 1.2 of spintest which is more accurate than <whatever the (unidentified) version was/is. It is also larger (over <3 kbytes) because a lot more verbiage is included explaining <interleave and interleave-testing. < <I personally formatted a drive at 2:1 interleave, ran the earlier <spintest and was told it was a 3:1 interleave. Version 1.2 reported <the correct 2:1 interleave factor. Excuse me, but SPINTEST doesn't report the interleave. It reports the number of revolutions it took to read a track. These are not the same thing. If you have a version that *does* report the interleave, I'd like to get a copy. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (08/19/88)
In article <1011@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: > >Excuse me, but SPINTEST doesn't report the interleave. It reports the >number of revolutions it took to read a track. These are not the same >thing. He's right - SPINTEST reports the number of revolutions to read a track. I took the assumptive leap of faith that these are the same I'll go off to my corner to think about why they are or aren't the same... Somebody asked me to post the newer version of SPINTEST. When I determine that it's "freely distributable" I'll send it to Rahul for posting. keith
feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke) (08/22/88)
In article <1011@bucket.UUCP>, leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: > In article <3815@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: > <In article <3648@bsu-cs.UUCP> tekgvs!tekcrl!tektronix!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!rutgers!iuvax!bsu-cs!ibmbin kenns@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Kenn Stump) writes: > <> > <There is a version 1.2 of spintest which is more accurate than > <whatever the (unidentified) version was/is. It is also larger (over > <3 kbytes) because a lot more verbiage is included explaining > <interleave and interleave-testing. > < [ deleted ] .... [Kenn may have confused revolutions per track with interleave] Kenn: Please post this newer version of spintest with the moderator. Many of of us would be interested in a program which reads interleave directly. !> Excuse me, but SPINTEST doesn't report the interleave. It reports the !> number of revolutions it took to read a track. These are not the same thing. !> Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard Leonard: Please email me on method of converting revolutions per track to interleave ratio (unless you have other requests, in which case post to c.b.i.p.d.) Forrest Gehrke