[rescue] Re: Drive Reliability (was SCSI drive for sale at buy.com)

[Curtis H. Wilbar Jr.]

I never dared run my MFM drives at RLL capacities... always feared data
loss....  on the other hand, I have overclocked a few CPUs... so go
figure... they do seem to contradict each other :-)

-- Curt

>Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:38:23 -0400
>From: Phil Stracchino <alaric at caerllewys.net>
>To: rescue at sunhelp.org
>Subject: Re: [rescue] Re: Drive Reliability (was SCSI drive for sale at 
buy.com)
>Mail-Followup-To: rescue at sunhelp.org
>X-ICBM: 35.6880N 77.4375W
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 2105 C6FC 945D 2A7A 0738  9BB8 D037 CE8E EFA1 3249
>X-PGP-Key-FTP-URL: ftp://ftp.babcom.com/pub/pgpkeys/alaric.asc
>X-PGP-Key-HTTP-URL: http://www.babcom.com/alaric/pgp.html
>X-UCE-Policy: No unsolicited commercial email is accepted at this site.  All 
senders of UCE will be immediately and permanently blocked.
>User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
>
>On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:25:18AM -0400, Curtis H. Wilbar Jr. wrote:
>> Got a stash of various MFM drives myself.  I've had MFM, ESDI, SCSI,
>> and IDE drives... somehow missing RLL along the way :-) ).
>
>If you have MFM, you didn't miss RLL.  :) MFM drives ARE RLL ....  it's
>just that (if I remember the parameters correctly) drives sold as MFM
>were actually RLL(2,5) while drive sold as RLL were RLL(3,7).  Seagate
>reportedly tested all of their MFM drives at RLL(3,7) first, labelled
>them as RLL if they passed, and as MFM if they didn't.
>
>
>-- 
> .*********  Fight Back!  It may not be just YOUR life at risk.  *********.
> : phil stracchino : unix ronin : renaissance man : mystic zen biker geek :
> :  alaric at caerllewys.net : alaric-ruthven at earthlink.net : phil at latt.net  :
> :   2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold)   :
> :    Linux Now!   ...Because friends don't let friends use Microsoft.    :
>_______________________________________________
>rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue