12 Dec
2000
12 Dec
'00
3:25 p.m.
<stroking beard and clearing throat>
It seems as though, whenever there's a substantial discussion about rotating
memory systems for the computers of yesteryear, the muddled distinctions
between "drive type" as used for describing what is being sought gets mixed
up with "drive interface" and "modulation type" among other concepts.
Here,
again, we have a reference to MFM/RLL, both of which are modulation
techniques, both of which were commonly used by SCSI, SMD, and ESDI drives,
among others. Another item that doesn't seem to help, is that the
distiction between physical interface, e.g. ST-506/412 (actually the same,
that
from all obvious features, though there were some minor
differences), gets
mixed in as well. SMD is an interface specification, as are
SCSI, SASI, and
ESDI.
A look at the SEAGATE spec's for their various drives, including those made
by CDC before SEAGATE acquired them, and you'll see ESDI drives that use RLL
and other that use ERLL and still others using MFM. Likewise with SCSI
products and SMD.
Real confusion comes from the fact that people referred to drives as being
RLL or MFM drives, which was, perhaps, a difference, but not in the drives.
There were a few models that performed badly with RLL that performed better
(more reliably) with MFM, but those were the exception rather than the rule.
The drive, actually the head/media combination, determined the flux reversal
density, and the spindle speed determined the resulting bit rate, right? It
seems simple enough. Sadly, there's more ... particularly after the
adoption of ZBR, in which the data rate with respect to time borrowed from
the strategy of CLV recording as used with optical media as opposed to the
previously popular CAV. It's no wonder that folks are confused, but it's
been 10 years or more since MFM fell out of fashion, and, in fact, since
controllers became a drive function rather than a host adapter function.
You'd think folks would have gotten these concepts straightened out. <sigh>
<getting down from soapbox>
That drive I'm looking for has to have at least 8 heads, and it has to have
at least 640 cylinders. In this particular case, until I find my source
code, I can't benefit from more heads or cylinders, nor can I "get by" with
fewer.
Thanks,
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: <jpero(a)sympatico.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: need a HDD
Date:
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:33:06 -0800
From: Marvin <marvin(a)rain.org>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: need a HDD
Reply-to: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
>
>
> Richard Erlacher wrote:
> >
> > Just in case someone's got one, I'm looking for a hard disk with 640
> > cylinders x 8 heads to replace a Rodime 204E. If anyone has somthing
> > will fit this geometry, and it's
available, I'd like to be informed.
>
> My memory (and docs) are not so good right now, but isn't that basically
the
> same configuration as the Seagate 251? If so, I
probably have several of
> them just sitting around *waiting* for an application to pop up :). Let
me
know if you
need one.
Mavin,
In MFM world, most commonest n of heads and cylinders is usually 6xx
and 8xx and 4 to 6 heads. Beyond that, that not very common.
ST251 is 820 (check) x 6 heads (not met) needs 8.
On this topic,
Even I was latecomer to MFM I deal with MFM/RLL, exrotic ESDI in
early '90's.
While I was thinking, why not have someone design and program a
adapter to take MFM/RLL as well as ESDI and translate it to SCSI or
IDE and wrap it up in DSP and all in one microcontroller, interface
chipset and some ram, rom? This way, helps people to up keep their
oddball machine that insists on odd drives. To set up that adapter
board to report specific cylinders range and heads, N of sectors that
reports back to that host machine and just "LL format" the scsi or
IDE hd if needed then HLF it in normal manner as you would do with
any MFM/RLL, ESDI drives.
Cheers,
Wizard