🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5440050@hplsla.HP.COM> andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) writes:
>saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes:
>
>|> The optimum interleave for any computer/controller/disc combination is 
>|> not always 1:1!
>|
>|This is true, but cheating on meanings.  When one says that a disk with 
>|built-in controller can be formatted for 1:1 interleave, the normal expectation
>|is that this means the controller will be able to deliver consecutive sectors
>|to a DMA device without read errors.  In other words, you can read a whole
>|track in one revolution if your computer is fast enough.  The ST 296N can't
>|do this (Rev 8 ROM).  It has nothing to do with the computer.
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I'm not trying to be argumentative (really!), but I wonder what the reason is
>for deciding the computer has nothing to do with it. Is it not possible that
>ROM 8 Seagates are somewhat faster than ROM 7 Seagates (in sector-to-sector
>delivery) and that the ST can't handle it at 1:1?
>
>
>    % Andy Cassino                                                  %

It would be nice to put this thing to rest.
I was the one who back in Feb started the discussion on
Rom 7 and Rom 8 Seagates, in particular, the 296N.

I saw many advertisements for the 296N delivering 1:1 interleave
FOR the ATARI ST.   Both dealers and mail-order houses confirmed that
the 296N went 1:1 on the 1040ST.  The selling price at that time
was $620-$750 for the mech alone.  I bought the drive.  Formatted
it with Supra software.  The drive worked.  As i had previously
been running off of floppies for 2.5 years, the hard drive seemed
like a gift from god.... until i realized that 20 secs to get
NOTATOR off my drive couldn't be good performance.  At that time,
there was much discussion on the nets regarding transfer rates
due to the release of ratehd.prg.  I ran ratehd and got 57k/sec.
I should have gotten at least 10 times that considering the mech
was rated at 10Mbits/sec (some loss due to adaptor etc.) 
Further investigation which included about 30 some odd phone calls
and about 50 hours of sweat and aggravation revealed a bug in the
ROM 7.  This bug IS independent of the ST... Proof in point points
to Seagate themselves confirming that they couldn't get their
386 to work 1:1 as well as a few other machines of theirs.
They admitted that a revision would be necessary but that
there would be no easy solution... that is, a single chip replacement
was impossible. 

Mind you that several people at Seagate knew nothing about the different
Roms... and one rep, the "specialist" for the N drives, told me anything
around 200k was "a great transfer rate".... i told him that 57k wasn't
so good.

So i bought a quantum 80, which is faster than a Seagate, but NOT
too fast for an ST.

-kevin
bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu