🚀 go-pugleaf

bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu writes:

| >I'll also verify this. My experience is that the FAT lookup is a much bigger
| >bottleneck than transfer rate - even with FATSPEED. Also, when loading large
| >programs, I notice that quite often it takes the program 2-3 times longer to
| >wake up than it took to get it off disk. Increasing transfer rate 30% 
|                                                                    ^^^^
|     The math is really closer to a 70% difference:
|     My Quantum at 1:1 delivers 675k/sec versus a 2:1 Seagate 296N
|     delivering 400+k/sec.  To me, that's almost a 70% improvement
|     with the Quantum.  

Er, sorry, I was comparing ROM 7 & 8 versions of the Seagate. I get 431k/sec,
and 550k/sec is what the Seagate  ROM 7 will do at 1:1. So, that's... 22%
difference between ROM versions.

| 
|      My only comment about the Seagate 296N is that it was supposed to
|      be a 1:1 interleave drive, and people paid money for that spec.
|      As far as I know, Seagate has yet to deal fairly  with its customers
|      who purchased the ROM8 version of the 296N.
| 

Well, the ROM 8 does format 1:1, and an ST can read it, though it's doggo-slow. 
The optimum interleave for any computer/controller/disc combination is 
not always 1:1!


Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those solely
of the author, who has no pecuniary interest in the companies mentioned.

Copyright (c) 1989 by Andrew Cassino.  All rights reserved.

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Andy Cassino                                                  %
    % uucp: hplabs!hplsla!andyc  domain: andyc%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com %
    % Hewlett-Packard              Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
    % 8600 Soper Hill Road                   Everett, WA 98205-1298 %
    % (206) 335-2211                                                %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%