jmm@skivs.UUCP (Joel M. Miller) (11/10/89)
What is the fastest (best mean access time and transfer rate) large (~300 MByte) fixed disk, suitable for the IIci? When I was last in the market, I was impressed with the FWB (?) "Hammmer" line of disks, which offered some sort of cashing scheme. -- Joel M Miller Internet: jmm@skivs.ski.org Smith-Kettlewell Institute Usenet: uunet!skivs!jmm 2232 Webster St Bitnet: jmm%skivs.ski.org@uunet.uu.net San Francisco, CA 94115 Voice: 415/561-1703 Fax: 415/561-1610
kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) (11/14/89)
jmm@skivs.UUCP (Joel M. Miller) writes: >What is the fastest (best mean access time and transfer rate) large >(~300 MByte) fixed disk, suitable for the IIci? >When I was last in the market, I was impressed with the FWB (?) "Hammmer" >line of disks, which offered some sort of cashing scheme. At MacWorld Boston, there was one company that was using a pair of CDC Wren Runners (10ms) in tandem, which gave them a 5 ms access time. Is that fast enough? Personally, I am satisfied with the 16ms access time that I have (a Wren 4 or 5). Have I have missed something? is there something special about the IIci that makes normal external SCSI disks not work? +C -- Cory Kempf Technology Concepts phone: (508) 443-7311 x341 uucp: {anywhere}!uunet!tci!kempf, kempf@tci.bell-atl.com DISCLAIMER: TCI is not responsible for my opinions, nor I for theirs
truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) (11/14/89)
kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) writes: >jmm@skivs.UUCP (Joel M. Miller) writes: >>What is the fastest (best mean access time and transfer rate) large >>(~300 MByte) fixed disk, suitable for the IIci? >>When I was last in the market, I was impressed with the FWB (?) "Hammmer" >>line of disks, which offered some sort of cashing scheme. The FWB boxes house CDC Wrens. >At MacWorld Boston, there was one company that was using a pair of >CDC Wren Runners (10ms) in tandem, which gave them a 5 ms access time. >Is that fast enough? MicroNet Technology offers that setup. They also have a very clean way of packing 5.25" drives into the IIcx and ci boxes. Talk to Charles McConnathy (president of MicroNet) about REAL drive performance some time. His premise is that access time is just a small part of the real world performance. 5.25" drives simple do less seeking than 3.5" drives and at any given time, have more data "under the heads" ready to read. This has the effect of dramatically increasing throughput during normal useage (not just tests). They can be reached at: MicroNet Technology, Inc 20 Mason Irvine, CA 92718 (714) 837-6033 --scott -- Scott Truesdell
logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan) (11/15/89)
In article <1989Nov13.224738.22909@paris.ics.uci.edu> truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes: > >MicroNet Technology offers that setup. They also have a very clean way >of packing 5.25" drives into the IIcx and ci boxes. Talk to Charles >McConnathy (president of MicroNet) about REAL drive performance some >time. His premise is that access time is just a small part of the real >world performance. 5.25" drives simple do less seeking than 3.5" >drives and at any given time, have more data "under the heads" ready to >read. This has the effect of dramatically increasing throughput during >normal useage (not just tests). > > --scott > >-- >Scott Truesdell Putting a 5.25" drive inside your IIcx/IIci will interfere with the Daystar Digital cache card. Also, a 5.25" drive does require more power than a 3.5" drive so that may cause problems if you are using a number of NuBus cards. For the true power user, there is the FWB hammer300is. This is a 3.5" drive which fits perfectly on a standard IIcx/IIci bracket. It delivers 12.5ms seek along with an average latency of 6.95ms. Sustainable transfer rate is 2.0 MB/sec. You will be hard pressed to find a 5.25" drive which can match these specifications. (Unless you have one of our hammer1000's :-) Sorry to sound so PR-ish on the net but I wanted to put to bed a few myths about 3.5" drives. -- Henry Kwan | AppleLink: D0690 FWB, Inc. | CompuServe: 71320,1034 2040 Polk St. Ste 215 | Internet: claris!wet!logic@ames.arc.nasa.gov San Francisco, CA 94109 | UUCP: {claris,hoptoad,lamc,ucsfcca}!wet!logic
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (11/16/89)
In article <1989Nov13.224738.22909@paris.ics.uci.edu> truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes: >MicroNet Technology offers that setup. They also have a very clean way >of packing 5.25" drives into the IIcx and ci boxes. Talk to Charles >McConnathy (president of MicroNet) about REAL drive performance some >time. His premise is that access time is just a small part of the real >world performance. 5.25" drives simple do less seeking than 3.5" >drives and at any given time, have more data "under the heads" ready to >read. This has the effect of dramatically increasing throughput during >normal useage (not just tests). Yeah, talk to Charles sometime. He has some really weird ideas of what constitutes drive performance. True enough that access time isn't everything (sustained transfer rates being at least as important), but Charles couldn't quite grasp why Quantum's 64K cache could possible speed up access times. (This was from a CI$ discussion.) Ken -- Ken Hancock '90 | DISCLAIMER: I'm graduating and looking for Consultant | a job, so I'll stand by my words. Computer Resource Center |============================================== Dartmouth College | EMAIL: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu