🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1576@mipos3.intel.com> mwilcox@pcocd2.intel.com (Mike Wilcox ) writes:

| 	I am looking for a RLL controler to attach a Maxtor xt-1140 to.
| I have read previous messages that although this is a MFM drive, it
| works rather well as a RLL. I would like to have 1:1 interleave and
| control floppies as well. another option would be a hard disk controller
| only. I believe that the xt-1140 has more than 1024 cylinders, if so a
| sector translating controller would be nice.

  I have used the WD1006VSR2 and Adaptek 2372 models. If you are running
Xenix the WD will probably be about three times faster, due to hardware
track buffering. If you run ix/386 the buffering is done in the kernel,
provides equal performance (and CPU overhead) for either. I have not
tried SCO UNIX, ESIX, etc, with either enough to have a good feel for
it. 

  When running two drives I have had problems with both controllers.
The Adaptek sometimes "loses" the drive params of the 2nd drive on power
up, easily cured by a low level format. I had the problem with two
controllers, and Karl Denninger mentioned that he had seen it, also. The
WD sometimes gets a lockup with two drives. This *seems* to be due to
the system starting a seek on both drives and messing up the interrupts
generated. I'm told (by Karl again) that there is a patch for ix/386 to
fix this. He posted some jumper settings which keep it under control for
Xenix. Obviously this can't happen with DOS which doesn't have the
brains to overlap seeks.

  I believe the 1140 is physically the same as the next larger drive
(1190 or 2190) and has extra tracks which haven't been tested. You can
try them, and you may get a bonus of 30% extra tracks. However, if they
are not good you have no comeback on warantee.
-- 
	bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
davidsen@sixhub.uucp		...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen

"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon