ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (08/11/90)
What is the net-wisdom on IDE drives? I am considering a Conner IDE 200M, which costs aprox. $900. In this price range, would I be better off with an ESDI drive (suggestions please)? The machine I am setting up is intended as single-user PC running Interactive's Unix/386. Thanks for your hints. I will post a summary if warranted. Geraldo Veiga
tgoldin@amherst.bitnet (08/21/90)
In article <1990Aug11.040610.2366@agate.berkeley.edu>, ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > What is the net-wisdom on IDE drives? I am considering a Conner IDE > 200M, which costs aprox. $900. In this price range, would I be better > off with an ESDI drive (suggestions please)? The machine I am setting > up is intended as single-user PC running Interactive's Unix/386. Connor is a reputable manufacturer; they have sold drives to Compaq and other computer vendors for years. IDE is a good standard that was well defined _before_ it came to market (as opposed to SCSI). The only thing to watch out for is that Connor drives will not operate properly in a machine that has a 10 MHz bus speed. Most machines have an 8 MHz bus, but many of the newer '386 computers have 10 MHz. If in doubt, check with the manufacturer of your computer/motherboard. Theo Goldin
buchholz@ese3.ogi.edu (Don Buchholz) (08/29/90)
>In article <1990Aug11.040610.2366@agate.berkeley.edu>, ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > What is the net-wisdom on IDE drives? I am considering a Conner IDE > 200M, which costs aprox. $900. In this price range, would I be better > off with an ESDI drive (suggestions please)? The machine I am setting > up is intended as single-user PC running Interactive's Unix/386. Here is my understanding of IDE drives. If I don't have all of the facts straight, I hope that someone who does know what they are talking about will post a followup message so that I can get them straight. Background: My only two experiences with IDE drives have been: 1) replacement of the original equipment in a Compaq Deskpro 386(16) -- we disabled the Compaq controller and purchased a WD controller card and 72 Mbyte CDC Wren II for less $$$ than a "reconditioned" Compaq drive 2) trying to do a low-level format on an AST Bravo 386SX 40 Mbyte Conner IDE -- Spinrite (I) came up with the message that it could not do a low-level format on the drive. So I decided that it wouldn't be necessary. [I do a low-level format on all new drives that come into our department. This procedure began when we were buying cheap XT-clones with Sleazegate ST-225's. We had at least 2 (out of 20) whose heads were unable to properly find all the tracks from the factory/retailers low-level format. I assume that the mechanisms were jostled enough while shipping to mis- align the heads.] After the AST experience, I thought that perhaps IDE did not need low-level formats because the controller and disk were "mathched" (so to speak). I now believe that this is *wrong* and that IDE drives do have low-level formats. A few weeks after my experiences with the Conner IDE, I had the occaision to call Gibson Research (the makers of Spinrite). They told me that IDE's do need low-level formatting, but that the format is something quite different from the typical MFM format that we're used to. Apparently IDEs use a scheme called "sector translation" to lay down the data. Western Digital and Seagate IDE's can be low-level formatted using the software provided by the manufacturer. Conner's disks, on the other hand, have a "proprietary" (a 4-letter word) for- matting scheme that requires one to send the disk back to Conner for a new format. Personally, I think that Conner's policy sucks! In the four years that I have been working here, I've managed to salvage 5+ disk drives by simply performing a low-level format on them. I see no reason that I should have to send a drive to the factory for a format! Don
kleonard@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Ken Leonard) (08/29/90)
In article <11724@ogicse.ogi.edu> buchholz@ese3.ogi.edu (Don Buchholz) writes:
*
* ...
* Conner's disks, on the other hand, have a "proprietary" (a 4-letter word) for-
* matting scheme that requires one to send the disk back to Conner for a new
* format.
*
* Personally, I think that Conner's policy sucks! In the four years that I have
* been working here, I've managed to salvage 5+ disk drives by simply performing
* a low-level format on them. I see no reason that I should have to send a drive
* to the factory for a format!
*
--
sooooo......
How _DID_ you lay down a new ll-format on the Conner drives???
-------
regardz,
Kenill@uni-paderborn.de (Markus Illenseer) (08/30/90)
buchholz@ese3.ogi.edu (Don Buchholz) writes: [some stuff about IDE deleted] >A few weeks after my experiences with the Conner IDE, I had the occaision to >call Gibson Research (the makers of Spinrite). They told me that IDE's do need >low-level formatting, but that the format is something quite different from the >typical MFM format that we're used to. Apparently IDEs use a scheme called >"sector translation" to lay down the data. Western Digital and Seagate IDE's >can be low-level formatted using the software provided by the manufacturer. >Conner's disks, on the other hand, have a "proprietary" (a 4-letter word) for- >matting scheme that requires one to send the disk back to Conner for a new >format. Yes, this is alright! IDE-Drives DO NOT NEED LOW LEVEL FORMAT ! DO NOT DO THIS ! At all they have a build in bad-track handler wich is using a special range of the free space on the drive to locate and to store the pointer of a bad-track , so only use special software to low-level-format them. If possible use fdisk to delete a partition then use format (DOS 3.xx or >) Under UNIX or OS/2 you don't have to do something like this. [stuff deleted] >Don CU, Markus ******************************************************************************** Markus Illenseer I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid, I can't do that. 4790 Paderborn ,United Germany Email: ill@uni-paderborn.de ********************************************************************************
ralphs@halcyon.wa.com (Ralph Sims) (08/30/90)
ill@uni-paderborn.de (Markus Illenseer) writes: >Yes, this is alright! IDE-Drives DO NOT NEED LOW LEVEL FORMAT ! DO NOT DO THIS! I've changed the interleave on a 40meg CONNER in a COMPAQ DESKPRO 386 in order to change the interleave. Seems to work just fine (used SPEEDSTOR), IDE interface and all. Don't shout too loud or it may decide not to work :-) . This is an older unit. -- No matter who you elect, the Government still gets in.
kleonard@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Ken Leonard) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug29.183630.25402@uni-paderborn.de> ill@uni-paderborn.de (Markus Illenseer) writes:
*
* , so only use special software to low-level-format them. If possible use
*
-----------
WHERE?? HOW?? WHAT??
-----------
regardz,
Kenill@uni-paderborn.de (Markus Illenseer) (09/03/90)
ralphs@halcyon.wa.com (Ralph Sims) writes: >ill@uni-paderborn.de (Markus Illenseer) writes: >>Yes, this is alright! IDE-Drives DO NOT NEED LOW LEVEL FORMAT ! DO NOT DO THIS! >I've changed the interleave on a 40meg CONNER in a COMPAQ DESKPRO 386 in order >to change the interleave. Seems to work just fine (used SPEEDSTOR), IDE >interface and all. Don't shout too loud or it may decide not to work :-) . >This is an older unit. >-- > No matter who you elect, the Government still gets in. Sorry, I didn't wanted to shout too loud. But in the past I had many troubles with IDE-Drives. The most Important thing is, that they have a build-in Defectlist-management, and it is possible that you ran into problems, using normal ll-formatter when they erase the list. The Speedstore ll-formatter is one of better ll-formatter, and it may be posible, that this one is not erasing the list. BTW, I am wondering how do you changed the Interleave of you IDE-Drive, I always thought, that these Drives are all running with Interleave 1:1 ? (Hardware !) The IDE-Drives aren't so old: At the beginning of 1989 they were started to sold from Miniscribe (first Distributor as I know...) Well, hope to write new stuff for further IDE-Discussion, CU, Markus ******************************************************************************** Markus Illenseer I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid, I can't do that. 4790 Paderborn ,United Germany Email: ill@uni-paderborn.de ********************************************************************************
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (09/04/90)
ill@uni-paderborn.de (Markus Illenseer) writes: >The IDE-Drives aren't so old:At the beginning of 1989 they were started to sold >from Miniscribe (first Distributor as I know...) Not quite. Conner's been making them for at least a couple of years, and CDC had their 94204 back in '87 or thereabouts (they called it an AT interface) and their SWIFT series was announced in late '87.
werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) (09/05/90)
In article <9940.26d03e5c@amherst.bitnet>, tgoldin@amherst.bitnet writes: > In article <1990Aug11.040610.2366@agate.berkeley.edu>, ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > > What is the net-wisdom on IDE drives? I am considering a Conner IDE > > 200M, which costs aprox. $900. In this price range, would I be better > > _before_ it came to market (as opposed to SCSI). The only thing to watch out > for is that Connor drives will not operate properly in a machine that has a 10 > MHz bus speed. My computer has both a 10MHz bus and a Conner CP-344 drive. So, at least in the case of the 40MB drive, the assertion that the two are incompatible is untrue. At least I hope that is the case, since I hope to add a CP-3204 someday when I can afford it. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 5.5 years down, 2.5 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "We live in interesting times..."
ill@uni-paderborn.de (Markus Illenseer) (09/14/90)
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: >ill@uni-paderborn.de (Markus Illenseer) writes: >>The IDE-Drives aren't so old:At the beginning of 1989 they were started to sold >>from Miniscribe (first Distributor as I know...) > Not quite. Conner's been making them for at least a couple of years, > and CDC had their 94204 back in '87 or thereabouts (they called it > an AT interface) and their SWIFT series was announced in late '87. Sorry, I made a mistake the date was NOT 1989 but 1988. So you're right ! Markus.