ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (08/29/89)
I am setting up a 386 clone that will eventually run a version of UNIX, probably 386/ix. Since I am trying to keep costs down, I am thinking of using a large (120MB) RLL hard-drive. I see from Interactive's list of compatible hardware that they limit the choices of RLL controllers, which concerns me a bit. Can anyone report their experience (good or bad) trying to install versions UNIX/386 in systems with RLL controllers?
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (08/30/89)
>Item 189 (0 resps) by ilan343 at violet.berkeley.edu on Tue 29 Aug 89 15:40 >[<No Identification>] Subject: RLL controllers & 386/ix (8 lines) > >I am setting up a 386 clone that will eventually run a version of UNIX, >probably 386/ix. Since I am trying to keep costs down, I am thinking of >using a large (120MB) RLL hard-drive. I see from Interactive's list of >compatible hardware that they limit the choices of RLL controllers, >which concerns me a bit. > >Can anyone report their experience (good or bad) trying to install >versions UNIX/386 in systems with RLL controllers? WD1006-V/SR2: Nice and FAST. Gawd, is it FAST. Has a track cache on-board, and uses it well. Will run 1:1 interleave, and is quite respectable, even when compared with SCSI or ESDI drive/controller combinations! Highly recommended as the controller to use. If you're running 386/ix, make DARN SURE it is 2.0.2. 2.0.1 and before had serious problems with either this board or RLL in general, we never determined which. Interactive was unresponsive, to put it nicely (this isn't alt.flame, so I won't post the entire text of what I think of their support abilities :-). But they did (silently) fix the problem in 2.0.2, or at least it appears so. SCO Xenix works with this board without hassles. Plug and play, you're up and running, no problems noted in about 9 months of use. If you need a source we stock 'em, and at a good price. Features include a track cache, on-board floppy control (can't disable it tho -- but we have a version sans floppy if you have one on the motherboard), and on-board BIOS for formatting and the like. If you're going to use it with a drive with > 1024 cylinders then 386/ix is DEFINATELY not what you want to use; they require a ROM entry for the drive type, and while the BIOS on this board can "spoof" the entry (and 386/ix deals with that) it can't set an entry that the bios won't support -- and BIOS entries are limited to 1024 cyls! SCO, again, deals with the board without trouble, even for drives with > 1024 cylinders. With SCO you can disable the onboard BIOS and still get full speed and use of the drive. 386/ix requires the BIOS enabled, thus the 1024 cylinder limitation. WD is working on this limitation, or so they say. Adaptec ACB2372: STAY AWAY. We have had a number of problems with these monsters. Problems include "losing" the configuration of drives, etc. This is not nice - if you lose the configuration in the controller (which apparently is stored on the drive) you all of a sudden don't have any data on the disk, and can't recover without a low-level format! They are also not caching boards, which is a bummer speed-wise. You simply can't get full performance out of these cards. DPT: Very fast, 512K - 16MB cache on-board. VERY EXPENSIVE as well. Base prices are around $1k, going up from there. Ouch. Great if you need it, but for that kind of money..... Disclaimer: We will sell any or all of the above, our opinions are biased based on what works and what doesn't :-) -- 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"
aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump) (08/30/89)
In article <1989Aug29.162452.10538@agate.uucp> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >I am setting up a 386 clone that will eventually run a version of UNIX, >probably 386/ix. Since I am trying to keep costs down, I am thinking of >using a large (120MB) RLL hard-drive. I see from Interactive's list of >compatible hardware that they limit the choices of RLL controllers, >which concerns me a bit. >Can anyone report their experience (good or bad) trying to install >versions UNIX/386 in systems with RLL controllers? No personal experience here; just some vendor info. ISC claims compatibility with just 4 RLL controllers (Adaptec ACB-237[02], Bell Tech [Intel?] B-130, and WD 1006V-SRZ). ESIX, on the other hand, specifically disclaims RLL support in the literature I received just yesterday. -- Alan S. Denney @ Informix Software, Inc. {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland "I want to live! -------------------------------------------- as an honest man, Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. to get all I deserve If I am caught or killed, the secretary and to give all I can." will disavow any knowledge of my actions. - S. Vega
pcg@thor.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (09/03/89)
In article <2237@infmx.UUCP> aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump) writes: In article <1989Aug29.162452.10538@agate.uucp> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >I am setting up a 386 clone that will eventually run a version of UNIX, >probably 386/ix. Since I am trying to keep costs down, I am thinking of >using a large (120MB) RLL hard-drive. I see from Interactive's list of >compatible hardware that they limit the choices of RLL controllers, >which concerns me a bit. >Can anyone report their experience (good or bad) trying to install >versions UNIX/386 in systems with RLL controllers? I am using an ACB 2372B on my 386 with ESIX 3.2; it works fine. It is quite fast, and does have a read ahead cache (small), which helps a little bit. It does support 1:1 low level format. The ESIX disc driver is not a speed monster unfortunately. No personal experience here; just some vendor info. ISC claims compatibility with just 4 RLL controllers (Adaptec ACB-237[02], Bell Tech [Intel?] B-130, and WD 1006V-SRZ). ESIX, on the other hand, specifically disclaims RLL support in the literature I received just yesterday. This is bizarre, because the ACB 2372 is virtually register level compatible with the standard MFM controller, the WD1003. The disc driver does not even realize that it is an RLL controller. The only difference is that RLL drives that have 26 sectors/track, not 17; but the driver can be configured to cope with that (in /etc/partitions). As I said, it does work on my machine. There is one problem with ESIX: if your disc geometry does not appear in the ROM table, you are more or less stuck if you use the standard installation procedure. Unfortunately most ROM tables do not have entries with 26 sectors/track. Thank goodness you can make your system work nonetheless. Just write manually an /etc/partitions file, instead of letting disksetup build it, taking care of specifying the right geometry. UNIX itself never looks at the ROM tables; they are only read during boot (and then you only want to make sure that the drive type you assigned with setup is for an entry with the right number of heads; cylinders and sectors are not important), and during installation, as disksetup consults the ROM table to get the geometry info to put in /etc/partitions. If you do that yourself, all is ok. I think that a good bet for a disc to use with an ACB 2372 is either an ST4144 or a Miniscribe 3128 (but most probably a 3085 will work). -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (09/03/89)
In article <1989Aug29.162452.10538@agate.uucp> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >I am setting up a 386 clone that will eventually run a version of UNIX, >probably 386/ix. Since I am trying to keep costs down, I am thinking of >using a large (120MB) RLL hard-drive. I see from Interactive's list of >compatible hardware that they limit the choices of RLL controllers, >which concerns me a bit. >Can anyone report their experience (good or bad) trying to install >versions UNIX/386 in systems with RLL controllers? I am using an ACB 2372B on my 386 with ESIX 3.2; it works fine. It is quite fast, and does have a read ahead cache (small), which helps a little bit. It does support 1:1 low level format. The ESIX disc driver is not a speed monster unfortunately. In article <2237@infmx.UUCP> aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump) writes: No personal experience here; just some vendor info. ISC claims compatibility with just 4 RLL controllers (Adaptec ACB-237[02], Bell Tech [Intel?] B-130, and WD 1006V-SRZ). ESIX, on the other hand, specifically disclaims RLL support in the literature I received just yesterday. This is bizarre, because the ACB 2372 is virtually register level compatible with the standard MFM controller, the WD1003. The disc driver does not even realize that it is an RLL controller. The only difference is that RLL drives that have 26 sectors/track, not 17; but the driver can be configured to cope with that (in /etc/partitions). As I said, it does work on my machine. There is one problem with ESIX: if your disc geometry does not appear in the ROM table, you are more or less stuck if you use the standard installation procedure. Unfortunately most ROM tables do not have entries with 26 sectors/track. Thank goodness you can make your system work nonetheless. Just write manually an /etc/partitions file, instead of letting disksetup build it, taking care of specifying the right geometry. UNIX itself never looks at the ROM tables; they are only read during boot (and then you only want to make sure that the drive type you assigned with setup is for an entry with the right number of heads; cylinders and sectors are not important), and during installation, as disksetup consults the ROM table to get the geometry info to put in /etc/partitions. If you do that yourself, all is ok. I think that a good bet for a disc to use with an ACB 2372 is either an ST4144 or a Miniscribe 3128 (but most probably a 3085 will work); both will give you 110-20 Mbytes of clean disk. Buy two, and your machine will be very fast. Price for either, thru mail order, is around $560-$570 (that is, two RLL'ed discs will give you 220 Mbytes, and are much faster for multiuser, than the otherwise excellent miniscribe ESDI 150 MBytes disc, even if this has 17ms average seek). My own preference goes to the Miniscribe; it has 22ms average seek, and is *half height* (the seagate is 28ms average seek, is full height, and many have had bad experience with seagate drives and constantly-seeking Unixes). -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (09/04/89)
In article <1115@aber-cs.UUCP>, pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > In article <1989Aug29.162452.10538@agate.uucp> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > I am using an ACB 2372B on my 386 with ESIX 3.2; it works fine. It is > quite fast, and does have a read ahead cache (small), which helps a little > bit. It does support 1:1 low level format. The ESIX disc driver is > not a speed monster unfortunately. I also am using an Adaptec 2372(b) with dual Micropolis 1335 drives under 386/ix and they are working just fine (so far). The original ISC documentation mentions that the OS will only work with drives in the CMOS drive table - and makes no mention of the BIOS on the controller card - but docuements conflict that information by mentioning that the controller BIOS will work. Since I have a drive type of 47 which can be defined in the BIOS by entering the number of heads, etc. I tried both ways (by also using the controller BIOS and setting the CMOS to a drive type 1) and ISC worked either way. -- Larry Snyder uucp:iuvax!ndcheg!ndmath!nstar!larry The Northern Star Usenet Distribution Site, Notre Dame, IN USA