🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <759@censor.UUCP> hugh@censor.UUCP (Hugh D. Gamble) writes:
>> I have tried different interleaves, another 2090 card, and various
>> partition sizes. Nothing has improved the performance. The only
>> unusual thing I've noticed apart from the low data transfer rates is
>> that I could not prep the drive with my controller, I had to use my
>> dealer's 2090A. 

>Are you sure you actually got the interleaves you asked for?
>Which ones did you try?
...
>You probably need an interleave of 4:1 for that drive. 

	The A2090(a) driver, when told by prep to format the whole disk,
uses (I think) 0 for the interleave.  This lets it default to whatever the
drive thinks is best.  Sounds like it's defaulting to too low a number
on the 296N (or maybe the driver is telling it to use interleave 1, but I doubt
it).

	Note that the "Interleave = x" in a mountlist has no effect - this
parameter is not low-level interleave, and currently is ignored (and should
not be set to anything other than 0).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering.  Keeper of AmigaDos.
 {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup
 Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"