rick@tmiuv0.uucp (05/24/90)
In article <11742@cbmvax.commodore.com>, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: > In article <1956@esunix.UUCP> blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) writes: [Stuff deleted] >>Oh, I've got a Microbotics Hardframe myself, if the A2091 can't do the >>trick, could the Hardframe be used to change the interleave, then format >>the drive on the A2091? As I remember the Hardframe does allow you to >>change the interleave. Hopefully I just overlooked something in the >>A2091 docs, and it's capable of changing the interleave. > > That should work. just low-level format it on the HF, then drop it > on the A2091. > Yup, HardFrame will do that just fine. It's the "FormatHF" program which does low level formatting. So, run formathf, select your interleave and go. When it's done, put it back on your 2091. I might suggest using an interleave of 3. Seems to work well with the older Seagate designs (like the 157N). -- (taking off MicroBotics hat. Yes, I do do some work for them) .-------------------------------------------------------------------------. / [- O] Rick Stevens (All opinions are mine. Everyone ignores them anyway.) \ | ? +--------------------------------------------------------------------| | V | uunet!zardoz!tmiuv0!rick (<-- Work (ugh!)) | |--------+ uunet!zardoz!xyclone!sysop (<-- Home Unix (better!)) | | uunet!perigrine!ccicpg!conexch!amoeba2!rps2 (<-- Home Amiga (Best!!) | \ 75006.1355@compuserve.com (CIS: 75006,1355) (<-- CI$) / `-------------------------------------------------------------------------' "Dammit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a software hack!" 8-)
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) (05/27/90)
I think this is a serious flaw of Commodore not allowing the user to specify the interleave. What about the poor bloke who doesn't have a HardFrame or any other SCSI controller besides his 2091? What is he suppose to do about formatting his drive if it doesn't know how to automatically set the interleave? Saying "take it to your dealer" is not always an option since not every city has a dealer (or even a dealer in a near-by city...) This is yet another "problem" I have about the 2091. A friend recently traded his 2091 for a Kronos and is happily getting much higher transfer rates. (On the order of 300k/sec better...) -- John M. Adams --**-- Professional Student on the six-year plan! /// Internet: jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu -or- vladimir@maple.circa.ufl.edu /// "Houston, we have a negative on that orbit trajectory." Calvin & Hobbes \\V// Cosysop of BBS:42; Amiga BBS FIDOnet 1:3612/42. 904-438-4803 (Florida) \X/
d87-jmf@sm.luth.se (Jim Malml|f) (05/27/90)
I have an ST157N-0 installed in my A590 (basically the same controller as the A2091) and when using diskspeed 3.1 I was getting higher write rates then read rates (write 500k/s, read 480 k/s) so I tried to change the interleave by poking around in the drive definitions file and then do low level formating in HDToolBox. This didn't work so after some hours of testing and some reading in magazines I thought of using diskperf instead of diskspeed . So after resetting the drive definition file to normal and low level formating and finally restoring all files on my harddisk (about 17Meg) I ran diskperf from fish 187. This is the result: File create/delete: create 10 files/sec, delete 18 files/sec Directory scan: 96 entries/sec Seek/read test: 52 seek/reads per second r/w speed: buf 512 bytes, rd 26568 byte/sec, wr 23037 byte/sec r/w speed: buf 4096 bytes, rd 100182 byte/sec, wr 83110 byte/sec r/w speed: buf 8192 bytes, rd 140748 byte/sec, wr 123604 byte/sec r/w speed: buf 32768 bytes, rd 332881 byte/sec, wr 174278 byte/sec r/w speed: buf 131072 bytes, rd 503316 byte/sec, wr 277156 byte/sec r/w speed: buf 524288 bytes, rd 551882 byte/sec, wr 332881 byte/sec (On partition dh0: 405 cyls ) So there seems to be some problems with diskspeed. I just thought I should warn about this problem so that all using this combination test this before rushing away and format the disk with another controller. My configuration is: A500 with kick 1.3 and MC68010 and totally 3Meg memory. /Jim =================================================================== Jim Malmlof E-Mail:tau.sm.luth.se
mk59200@korppi.tut.fi (Kolkka Markku Olavi) (05/28/90)
In article <23337@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes: >I think this is a serious flaw of Commodore not allowing the user to >specify the interleave. What about the poor bloke who doesn't have Actually it is a serious flaw in the Seagate drives. According to the SCSI standard, if the format command specifies zero interleave, the drive should select the best interleave factor by itself. It seems that Seagate's idea of "best" doesn't mean "fastest". -- Markku Kolkka mk59200@tut.fi
CHEM194@canterbury.ac.nz (J.DAVIS) (05/31/90)
In article <13372@etana.tut.fi>, mk59200@korppi.tut.fi (Kolkka Markku Olavi) writes: > In article <23337@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes: >>I think this is a serious flaw of Commodore not allowing the user to >>specify the interleave. What about the poor bloke who doesn't have > > Actually it is a serious flaw in the Seagate drives. According to > the SCSI standard, if the format command specifies zero interleave, > the drive should select the best interleave factor by itself. > It seems that Seagate's idea of "best" doesn't mean "fastest". > > -- > Markku Kolkka > mk59200@tut.fi