[comp.periphs.scsi] RODINE SCSI drives, do they run wit

neese@adaptx1.UUCP (04/26/91)

>/* ---------- "RODINE SCSI drives, do they run wit" ---------- */
>
>
>Hi,
>	I plan to buty a 100M Rodine SCSI for my 386 which has
>	an Adaptec SCSI controller (1542 I think). This will be my second
>	SCSI drive. I already have an 80M Seagate drive as my first drive.
>
>	I will be using ISC-Unix 2.0 
>
>	I would like to know if Rodine drives (SCSI) can be used
>	with Adaptec SCSI controllers, while being daisy chained
>	after a Seagate 296N.

Historically, Rodime has not had the most robust implementation of SCSI
around.  They usually are fine on the bus by themselves, but sometimes have
been known to cause problems with other devices.  Admittedly, it has been
a while since I fooled around with Rodime drives, so they could have gotten
it together in the last couple of years.

			Roy Neese
			Adaptec Senior SCSI Applications Engineer
			UUCP @  neese@adaptex
				uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utacfd!merch!adaptex!neese

norcott@databs.enet.dec.com (Bill Norcott) (04/30/91)

In article <283400099@adaptx1>, neese@adaptx1.UUCP writes...
> 
>Historically, Rodime has not had the most robust implementation of SCSI
>around.  They usually are fine on the bus by themselves, but sometimes have
>been known to cause problems with other devices.  Admittedly, it has been
>a while since I fooled around with Rodime drives, so they could have gotten
>it together in the last couple of years.
> 
>			Roy Neese
>			Adaptec Senior SCSI Applications Engineer
>			UUCP @  neese@adaptex
>				uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utacfd!merch!adaptex!neese
Roy,

I am using the 210 MB Rodime RO3000T with an Adaptec 1542, it works just
fine.  This is their newest model disk.  I have it on there with an 
Archive 2150S and previously also had a Seagate ST296N attached.

With Coretest 2.92 it measures > 800 KB/sec transfer rate, which is faster
than my previous CDC model 94161-155.  The Rodime has a little slower access
time, 18 msec versus 16.5 for the CDC.  But the Rodime *seems* faster, and
runs UNIX benchmarks such as IOstone faster, maybe because of the 4x16K
cache buffer.  

Bill Norcott