goat@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Craig Stephen Campbell) (02/18/91)
OK, now I'm really curious. I have had nothing but positive experiences
with (small) IDE drives, and I'm about to spend a lot of money on a larger one.
What do you all know about IDE? What Experiences have you had? rumours you
have heard? I think it's time to find out why this baby is so (apparently)
cheap, fast, and simple.
Please please please somebody explain IDE drives... how do you low level
format them, anyways? Disk manufacturers obviously can do it....
...I would appreciate any responses...
Craig
--
--------------=================-----------------------==============---------->
Internet: goat@ucscb.UCSC.EDU "Last night I was cool at the pool hall,
Bitnet: goat%ucscb@ucscc.bitnet I held the table for eleven games....
MOUNTAIN GOATS ARE WAY COOL, Nothing was easier than the first seven, L
I WOULD LOVE TO BE ONE. :-) I beat a woman with vericose veins....."
..for a good laugh, rec.audio --Neil Young, "Sedan Delivery"
hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) (02/19/91)
are IDE drives generally noisier than other types? my IDE is as noisy as hell!
mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) (02/19/91)
In article <Mbk1fY600WB7A3T2Rq@andrew.cmu.edu> hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) writes: >are IDE drives generally noisier than other types? my IDE is as noisy as hell! There must be a problem with your drive. I have a couple Conner 42 Mb drives and one really has to strain to hear ANYTHING from these over the sound of the system fan. MC"B!"L
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (02/19/91)
goat@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Craig Stephen Campbell) writes: > OK, now I'm really curious. I have had nothing but positive experiences >with (small) IDE drives, and I'm about to spend a lot of money on a larger one. >What do you all know about IDE? What Experiences have you had? rumours you >have heard? I think it's time to find out why this baby is so (apparently) >cheap, fast, and simple. Why they're cheap, I don't know. My experiences with IDE have been nothing but good. These experiences range from installing a pair of Conner CP-3184's in a Novell server to dinking around with them on Unix 386 systems. The only thing one should worry about with respect to IDE is compatability. From what I have heardhow compatable your IDE drive is in your system depends on who's IDE adaptor you use plus which manufacturer of IDE drive you go with. Supposedly Conner, Imprimis (now a division of Seagate), and Maxtor are dependable. I can only attest for Conner. ISC only certifies Imprimis and Rodime IDE drives to work under ISC 2.2, but I have heard a number of people saying that Conner works with ISC, not surprising to me. I have also taken my Seagate ST151 and hooked it into a WD1003-IWH (ST412/506 MFM to IDE board) and got ISC 2.0.2 to run off of that without reformatting the drive. The only thing to be weary of is compatability issues. Don't try and run IDE under Novell ELS Level I, it's not Novell certified. Whether it works or not, I don't know. I try and stick with Novell certified configurations when dealing with Netware. I've also heard of some very idiosyncratic behavior of IDE under SCO Xenix. So again, be forewarned. Best bet is to have a dealer's guarantee that it will work otherwise they'll refund your money. Only way to be 125% though is to test it in the field. IDE is NOT a replacement for ST412/506 MFM. It will work 99% of the time though. > Please please please somebody explain IDE drives... how do you low level > format them, anyways? Disk manufacturers obviously can do it.... You get a program that is aware of IDE drives. Disk Manager 4.1 is aware of IDE drives. But make sure that the program is specifically aware of IDE drives since it has to switch the drive into native mode and format it using its actual drive geometry. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | What to buy? ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | EISA or MCA? ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | When will the bus wars end? ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
ralphs@sumax.seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) (02/19/91)
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > goat@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Craig Stephen Campbell) writes: > >What do you all know about IDE? What Experiences have you had? rumours you > Why they're cheap, I don't know. My experiences with IDE have been nothing > but good. These experiences range from installing a pair of Conner CP-3184's > in a Novell server to dinking around with them on Unix 386 systems. I can attest to satisfaction with CDC's contribution to COMPAQ's 40-meg drive in the older 386/16's, MAXTOR's XLT-200A, Conner 3111 (? a 110meg, maybe a 3184), and a MicroScience 7100-20. The MicroSci is a little 'clickety' when the drive's being accessed, but appears to be fairly solid (albeit a little on the 'fat' size when it comes to installing in the COMPAQ). No problems running under COMPAQ DOS 3.31 with ~32meg paritions. > > Please please please somebody explain IDE drives... how do you low level > > format them, anyways? Disk manufacturers obviously can do it.... > You get a program that is aware of IDE drives. Disk Manager 4.1 is aware of > IDE drives. But make sure that the program is specifically aware of IDE > drives since it has to switch the drive into native mode and format it using > its actual drive geometry. In speaking with drive manufacturers (CONNER and MICROSCIENCE, in this case), they advised against low-level formatting. I used DiskMangler (uh, DiskManager) to help confuse a COMPAQ's limited drive table into believing it had a compatible drive. All in all, I think IDE's are a good choice, but one should make sure the copmuter's BIOS can handle it, or that you can beat it into sub- mission. Software wise--at least under MS-DOS--I haven't found any compatibilities. I highly recommend the MAXTOR XLT-200A, but this is deteriorating into a 'religious' issue :-).
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (02/19/91)
hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) writes: >are IDE drives generally noisier than other types? my IDE is as noisy as hell! Depends on the drive. Conners and Maxtors are so quiet that it drives you insane. On those two drives you want the LED hooked up otherwise you'd never know that it's working. My running joke about those *VERY* quiet IDE and SCSI 3.5" drives is that there's really a little elf inside of the computer writing the data down on a noiseless marker board. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | What to buy? ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | EISA or MCA? ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | When will the bus wars end? ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
rafiq@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Salik "slick" Rafiq) (02/20/91)
In article <7633@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > >The only thing one should worry about with respect to IDE is compatability. >From what I have heardhow compatable your IDE drive is in your system depends >on who's IDE adaptor you use plus which manufacturer of IDE drive you go with. > >Supposedly Conner, Imprimis (now a division of Seagate), and Maxtor are >dependable. I can only attest for Conner. Unfortunatly, the Maxtor 200Meg IDE drive will not always boot on my 33MHZ-386 system. 9 times out of 10 it will boot...this is really irritating. I now must decide between a 200Meg Conner or a 200Meg Seagate. :-( I've heard of other such problem with large-fast IDE drives in fast motherboards. Salik. > -- Salik Rafiq internet: rafiq@ccu.UManitoba.CA Department of Computer Science rafiq@gold.cs.UManitoba.CA University of Manitoba BITNET: rafiq@UOFMCC Winnipeg,Manitoba
calloway@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Frank Calloway) (03/22/91)
I recently needed a replacement for a Miniscribe 3085 drive that had been giving me problems for over a year. After a bit of shopping around, I bought a Toshiba MK234FCH IDE drive plus host adapter card from Hard Drives International for $499. This was my first experience with IDE, but the installation went okay (no thanks to the documentation supplied by Hard Drives International) and the drive works well. I got 117 MBytes under DOS 4.01 and a data tranfer rate of just over 800K, as measured with Coretest on my HP Vectra QS/16 computer (16 Mhz '386). As others have commented about IDE drives, my Toshiba is so quiet you can't hear it run. I still find myself looking at the drive activity LED simply to see if anything is happening. It works great, and according to PC Magazine's findings, the Toshiba drive should be reliable. Frank Calloway
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (03/25/91)
In article <12070002@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> calloway@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Frank Calloway) writes: >I got 117 MBytes under DOS 4.01 and a data tranfer rate of just over >800K, as measured with Coretest Since most IDE drives have on-board caches, all Coretest tells you is how fast you can read from that cache. Not particularly meaningful unless your application reads the same block of 64K from the drive over and over... But Coretest comes up with an impressively high number which looks good in ad copy -- too bad it doesn't mean anything. Is there a Coretest-like program out there which reads, say, 10 contiguous megabytes from a drive to measure the transfer rate? This should defeat just about any hardware or software cacheing mechanism. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (03/25/91)
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: >Is there a Coretest-like program out there which reads, say, 10 contiguous >megabytes from a drive to measure the transfer rate? This should >defeat just about any hardware or software cacheing mechanism. Try TESTDISK, distributed by Western Digital and Columbia Data. It not only allows one to specify the size of the transfer, but also runs the tests with different block sizes (1-2-4-8-16-32-64K, as I recall.) For a multi-tasking write (for those running UNIX, say) try the 'bench' program (source in UnixWorld, February, 89). ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech
mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar24.173308.3337@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: >Since most IDE drives have on-board caches, all Coretest tells you is how >fast you can read from that cache. Not particularly meaningful unless your >application reads the same block of 64K from the drive over and over... >But Coretest comes up with an impressively high number which looks good in >ad copy -- too bad it doesn't mean anything. I use on my harddisks tools which compress the disk so the data is continuos, so IDE-drive's cache is just what I need. >Is there a Coretest-like program out there which reads, say, 10 contiguous >megabytes from a drive to measure the transfer rate? This should >defeat just about any hardware or software cacheing mechanism. When do you need to read 10M at a time. No programs need that much data. Only when you copy somethimg you read 10M, but then you also use floppies that are very slow. Markus Strand mstr@vipunen.hut.fi
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar25.165950.14531@santra.uucp> mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) writes: >I use on my harddisks tools which compress the disk so the data is continuos, >so IDE-drive's cache is just what I need. A cache is only useful if you're reading data which is already in the cache. If you're reading continuous data, it's not going to be in the cache. >When do you need to read 10M at a time. No programs need that much data. I didn't mean to imply that my application mix typically read 10M at a time. I meant that reading 10M of contiguous data should defeat any cache and show you what the transfer rate of data *from the disk* is, not *from the cache*. Can 64K of disk cache really help that much? -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (04/01/91)
In article <> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: <In article <> mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) writes: <>I use on my harddisks tools which compress the disk so the data is continuos, <>so IDE-drive's cache is just what I need. < <A cache is only useful if you're reading data which is already in the <cache. If you're reading continuous data, it's not going to be in the <cache. Look-ahead caches are very commonplace these days. For real-world applications they can improve disk throughput considerably, even if all that an application does is continuous reading of new data, with no repeats. However, a good benchmark that does full track reads with little/no processing of data could be fast enough to bypass the artificial speed-up gained from the look-ahead cache.. in other words, it still oughta be possible to measure the true data-transfer-rate of the physical drive/controller. But to do this requires knowledge of the drive geometry, which is not always available with IDE drives. -- MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario *** Personal views only *** begin 644 NOTSHARE.COM ; Free MS-DOS utility - use instead of SHARE.EXE MZQ.0@/P/=`J`_!9T!2[_+H``L/_/+HX&+`"T2<TAO@,!OX0`N1(`C,B.P/.DS <^K@A-<TAB1Z``(P&@@"ZA`"X(27-(?NZE@#-)P#-5 `` end
mstr@vipunen.hut.fi (Markus Strand) (04/01/91)
I can't see why a built-in cache is worse than no cache?? The only problem I have heard of here is that benchmarks give too good ratings. You can use a software cache to improve the cache hit ratin if you want. The only good way to compare different harddisks is to run you application and measure the time on each harddrive. The one that is fastest is the fastest if it has a built-in cache or not. At this time I'm running a 33MHz 386 with 4M RAM, 70M and 105M IDE HDs and 1.2M,1.44 and 360k floppies, and I'm realy satisfied with my HDs. If you want to use ST-506 drives, please do, but IDE is an enchanged ST-506. You might hear someone call a ST-506 drive as a MFM or RLL drive, but thats only the datastorage. Most IDE drives are RLL drives. Markus Strand mstr@vipunen.hut.fi