randy@ghp.UUCP (Randy Steves) (03/01/91)
Has anyone out there tried getting Interactive's sysV 3.2 ver 2.02 running using the IDE type drives and controllers on a 386 based machine? If you did did you have to do anything particular. I have heard that these drives do not work on interactive unix.
rolande@kuling.UUCP (Roland Eriksson) (03/05/91)
In article <767@ghp.UUCP> randy@ghp.UUCP (Randy Steves) writes: >Has anyone out there tried getting Interactive's sysV 3.2 ver 2.02 running >using the IDE type drives and controllers on a 386 based machine? > >If you did did you have to do anything particular. I have heard that these >drives do not work on interactive unix. I have twice installed the above stated version of Interactive UNIX on a generic 20MHz 386 machine with 4 Meg of RAM *and* 100 Meg of IDE hard disk drive, no problems, no fixeses of any kind. Everyting worked just fine.
akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) (03/08/91)
>Author: [Roland Eriksson] > Date: Tue Mar 05 1991 18:01 > Lines: 11 > >In article <767@ghp.UUCP> randy@ghp.UUCP (Randy Steves) writes: >>Has anyone out there tried getting Interactive's sysV 3.2 ver 2.02 running >>using the IDE type drives and controllers on a 386 based machine? >> >>If you did did you have to do anything particular. I have heard that these >>drives do not work on interactive unix. > >I have twice installed the above stated version of Interactive UNIX >on a generic 20MHz 386 machine with 4 Meg of RAM *and* 100 Meg of IDE >hard disk drive, no problems, no fixeses of any kind. Everyting worked >just fine. Was it slow using a 20MHz machine with Interactive Unix? I might be getting a DTK - PTi217 with a Quantum, (I know.. I don't like Quantum) IDE drive and controller. Was it one of these you worked on? :) A guy can be safe and say; "Hey, this guy did it and I know I won't have problems." ____ \GC/ Greg Clawson \/ Chicago IL. - The heart of America
dvh@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Dadid Hawke) (03/12/91)
I have been running Interactive 2.0.2 on a 386SX system with a 210Mb Conner
IDE drive - performance is satisfactory (albeit X11 is slow-ish) - no
installation or operational problems - except after the system was moved
long distance - lost track of the UNIX boot sector for some reason.
David Hawke (Aust Defence Force Academy / Univ of Auckland)
----------------------------
| dvh@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au |
----------------------------lam@hyper.hyper.com (Edmund C. Lam) (03/12/91)
ISC2.2 will work with DTK217 with Quantum drives. We have a box here
with two Q40ATs.
The drawback with IDE comes from the fact that the interface limits
your data transfer rates to an observed maximum of 400K/s.
The drive might be quick on average access time, but IDE drives
suffer from low transfer rates.
I had a chance to compare a 'fast' drive, the Quantum 105 in both
IDE and SCSI form (105AT and 105S). The 105S provided 600K/s with
1542 running at 5.7Mhz DMA (wouldn't work at 8 Mhz). While the 105AT with
a DTK217 provided only approx. 400K/s.
This limit was observed on a varity of IDE drives (Quantum 40AT,52AT,80AT,
105AT and 210AT, Maxtor 8051A, Seagate ST157A, Fuj M2611 and M2612)
connected to various IDE controllers (DTK217, BS3290A, MiniScribe IDE/FD).
For single user use, I suspect that IDE will be adequate. For multi-user
go with SCSI or ESDI. The cost difference between IDE and SCSI is about
the cost of the SCSI controller ($300 Cdn). Most boxes come with multi-I/O
IDE controllers. The cost of Quantum IDE and SCSI drives are the same.
--
-------------------------------------------
- Edmund C. Lam (lam@hyper.com) -
- HyperCube Inc. #7-419 Phillip Street -
- Waterloo,Ontario N2L 3X2 -john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (03/13/91)
In article <27d742a0-4fa.2comp.unix.sysv386-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes: >Was [IDE] slow using a 20MHz machine with Interactive Unix? The Conner 200 MB IDE seems pretty slow to me on a 386/20 running ISC 2.0.2. A simple disk I/O benchmark I run gets much slower rates on the IDE than on 1:1 ST-506/MFM. Moving the drive to a 386/33 didn't improve things. Maybe a 386 isn't fast enough to run 1:1 interleave at a 12 MHz transfer rate? -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (03/13/91)
In article <1991Mar12.131829.7403@hyper.hyper.com> lam@hyper.UUCP (Edmund C. Lam,,) writes: >The drawback with IDE comes from the fact that the interface limits >your data transfer rates to an observed maximum of 400K/s. How did you measure these transfer rates? When I run something like Coretest under raw DOS, I see transfer rates of around 1.1 MB/sec off of a Conner drive. But since Coretest is reading < 64KB blocks in its test, and the controller has a 64KB cache buffer, all I'm seeing is the read rate from the cache. I would assume this is the "interface speed,", i.e., the speed at which data can be moved from the controller to the CPU, irrespective of the speed at which data can be moved from the drive to the controller. Under UNIX (and DOS), I see "application" transfer rates which are much lower -- below 200KB/sec for reads and 50KB/sec for writes. I don't know if this is a limitation in the drive-to-controller transfer rate, or something else. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)