angelini@apollo.HP.COM (Bob Angelini) (01/17/91)
The Seagate ST01 and ST02 SCSI controllers will only work with Seagate SCSI drives.
tin@smsc.sony.com (Tin "Man" Le) (01/18/91)
In article <4f429ab7.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> angelini@apollo.HP.COM (Bob Angelini) writes: > >The Seagate ST01 and ST02 SCSI controllers will only work with >Seagate SCSI drives. I can't let misinformation go by. The ST0X will work with any SCSI drives. The ROM BIOS on the board is for DOS to make it look like an ST506 controller. Seagate drives (that is supposedly "specially" prepared for the ST0X ctrlrs), simply comes pre-formatted for DOS and has partitioning software on them. That is about the only difference between "those" drives and SCSI drives from other manufacturers. I have personally used (am using) several different non-Seagate SCSI drive with an ST02. -- Tin -- .---------------------------------------------------------------------- . Tin Le Work Internet: tin@smsc.Sony.COM . Sony Microsystems UUCP: {uunet,mips}!sonyusa!tin . Work: (408) 944-4157 Home Internet: tin@szebra.uu.net
chuckl@chips.com (Chuck Linsley) (01/18/91)
In article <THOGER.91Jan17041919@solan16.solan.unit.no> thoger@solan.unit.no (Terje Th|gersen) writes: >The manual states that the ST0x will only drive Seagate HDs. I've no idea >why, or how they figure out that it is a Seagate drive hooked up (anybody >know?), but this is intentional, something they've added through that BIOS. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it would be quite easy to do. Issue an INQUIRY command, and look for Seagate's manufacturer code in the return data. You can even look for specific model numbers. We have used this technique in our code to avoid problems due to severe brain damage in specific drives, e.g. Seagate ST277N. Chuck Linsley chuckl@chips.com Any opinions expressed above are those of the author, and not official policies of Chips and Technologies, Inc.
kraco@motcid.UUCP (Carl Kraco) (01/18/91)
tin@smsc.sony.com (Tin "Man" Le) writes: >In article <4f429ab7.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> angelini@apollo.HP.COM (Bob Angelini) writes: >> >>The Seagate ST01 and ST02 SCSI controllers will only work with >>Seagate SCSI drives. > I can't let misinformation go by. The ST0X will work with any SCSI > drives. The ROM BIOS on the board is for DOS to make it look like > an ST506 controller. Seagate drives (that is supposedly "specially" > prepared for the ST0X ctrlrs), simply comes pre-formatted for DOS and > has partitioning software on them. > That is about the only difference between "those" drives and SCSI > drives from other manufacturers. > I have personally used (am using) several different non-Seagate SCSI > drive with an ST02. >-- Tin I agree with Tin. When the ST01 first arrived on the market, I grabbed one to use with a MAXTOR 4170 and MAXTOR 3x80s. At first, however, I was having trouble with the timing on the SCSI bus. After several calls to SEAGATE to discuss the problems, one of the technical people at SEAGATE explained that the timing was controlled from the ST01 BIOS and that it may not work with all SCSI drives. He said that the BIOS on the ST02 had released the timing constraints a bit and should work with ALMOST any drive. As a result, Seagate sent me a new BIOS EPROM that was labelled ST02 V3.1. This cured all my problems . I have even tested several other manufacturers drives without problems. Carl.
mussar@bcars53.uucp (G. Mussar) (01/18/91)
In article <1991Jan18.003222.15824@smsc.sony.com> tin@smsc.sony.com (Tin "Man" Le) writes: >In article <4f429ab7.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> angelini@apollo.HP.COM (Bob Angelini) writes: >> >>The Seagate ST01 and ST02 SCSI controllers will only work with >>Seagate SCSI drives. > > > I can't let misinformation go by. The ST0X will work with any SCSI > drives. Sigh, I guess I can't let misinformation go by either. You are both right and both wrong. The early version of the ST01 BIOS explicitly checked for Seagate drives and refused to run on any others. Seagate has since upgraded the ROM BIOS and now the ST0x controllers run with other vendors disks. Be aware that a number of disks do not work on ST0x controllers. You should verify (by acutally trying) before purchase. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Mussar |Bitnet: mussar@bnr.ca | Phone: (613) 763-4937 BNR Ltd. | UUCP: ..uunet!bnrgate!bcars53!mussar | FAX: (613) 763-2626
ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu (The Sanj-Machine aka Ice) (01/27/91)
In article <1991Jan18.003222.15824@smsc.sony.com> tin@smsc.sony.com (Tin "Man" Le) writes: > > I have personally used (am using) several different non-Seagate SCSI > drive with an ST02. > Chances are, you are not getting the performance you could be getting. To paraphrase from comments last year on the ST-02. It is "an obsolete Future Domain design that Seagate bought the rights to, and now bundle with their systems." "It is dirt cheap." It is an 8-bit controller with NO support from Unix vendors. It is okay if you intend to only run DOS/Windows. But if you have high performance SCSI drives, look elsewhere. Only a multi-tasking system can take advantage of multi-threaded I/O that SCSI is capable of providing anyway. And hence you need a host adapter that is supported by the Unix people. -- "No one had the guts... until now!" $anjay $ingh Fire & "Ice" ssingh@watserv1.[u]waterloo.{edu|cdn}/[ca] ROBOTRON Hi-Score: 20 Million Points | A new level of (in)human throughput... "The human race is inefficient and therefore must be destroyed."-Eugene Jarvis
mike@cimcor.mn.org (Michael Grenier) (01/28/91)
(The Sanj-Machine aka Ice): > In article <1991Jan18.003222.15824@smsc.sony.com> tin@smsc.sony.com (Tin "Man" Le) writes: >> >> I have personally used (am using) several different non-Seagate SCSI >> drive with an ST02. >> > > Chances are, you are not getting the performance you could be getting. > To paraphrase from comments last year on the ST-02. It is "an obsolete > Future Domain design that Seagate bought the rights to, and now bundle > with their systems." "It is dirt cheap." It is an 8-bit controller with > NO support from Unix vendors. It is okay if you intend to only run DOS/Windows. > > But if you have high performance SCSI drives, look elsewhere. Only a I couldn't let that pass! The ST-02 controller may be cheap but its not that bad...certainly better than ESDI and RLL. There is a PD UNIX driver for the board which works fine. Using the raw device and big blocks a friend with a 25MhZ board can transfer at rates around 1.2 Megabytes per second to a Wren IV using dd if=/dev/rscsi0s0 of=/dev/null bs=100k count=... which is much faster than many get with the Adaptec 1542. I realize that vendor support is nice and thus I would recommend a supported card particularly if it is the only controller card you will use. The ST-01 is a nice choice though if you are going to boot a MFM/RLL/ESDI drive. Remember a few points : SCSI (for almost all drives) is an 8 bit protocol. So 16 bit boards may not buy you that much. The AT bus even in 8 bit mode is as fast as most scsi drives in async mode. The ST-01/02 controllers controller the wait line on the bus to sync the transfer from the card to memory - relieving the need for the software driver to poll the card to see if more date is ready...this also speeds up transfers. In fact, because you can use the REP memory move instructions, transfers move as fast 8-bit DMA. Cards like the Adaptec 1542 do not run in all motherboards (including the one I'm typing this message in at!). I'm not saying that a $25 card like the ST-01 is better than anything on the market and I certainly would not want to compare it one on one with cards like the Adaptec with is fast bus mastering. I'm just saying that it not as bad as many believe. -Mike Grenier mike@cimcor.mn.org
src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) (01/30/91)
mike@cimcor.mn.org (Michael Grenier) writes: >There is a PD UNIX driver for the board which works fine. Using the >raw device and big blocks a friend with a 25MhZ board can transfer >at rates around 1.2 Megabytes per second to a Wren IV using > dd if=/dev/rscsi0s0 of=/dev/null bs=100k count=... >which is much faster than many get with the Adaptec 1542. hey, i get 1.5MB/s with the 1542 :-) however, it's much more important how much you get through the filesystem. try out the boonie file system benchmark and compare it's output to this: -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 386/33-ISC 80 243 91.8 351 28.4 396 65.6 216 97.6 742 62.6 17.3 14.4 i'd be really interested in what you achieve with the st-02. >Remember a few points : > SCSI (for almost all drives) is an 8 bit protocol. So 16 bit > boards may not buy you that much. > The AT bus even in 8 bit mode is as fast as most scsi drives > in async mode. you miss an important point here. first you don't use drives in async mode ;-), second the main advantage of 16bit and adapters like the adaptec with bus master dma shows up when you have more than one disk on it. > Cards like the Adaptec 1542 do not run in all motherboards > (including the one I'm typing this message in at!). that's the fault of your motherboard. >I'm not saying that a $25 card like the ST-01 is better than >anything on the market and I certainly would not want to compare >it one on one with cards like the Adaptec with is fast bus mastering. >I'm just saying that it not as bad as many believe. i agree that for many people it suffices. it's a matter of costs too. -- Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 public source archive [HST V.42bis]: scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home