1024 CYL versus WD2010

[Jan Isley]

In article <1581 at mtunb.ATT.COM> jcm at mtunb.UUCP (John McMillan) writes:
>If I recall correctly, two recent notes seemed to assert that
>WD2010 chips were needed -- and I couldn't see why.

Various very logical and correct points deleted.

>I'd have skipped the whole matter, but I think someone else made the
>same assertion in another note.  Perhaps I've missed some key feature
>of this chip I should know about...

Well, about a year ago I alluded that there was maybe something more to
say for a 2010 than the 1024 cylinder limit.

I had been running a Seagate 4096 for a few months with a "variety" of
intermittent read/write problems and a steadily growing bad block table.

I needed to test a Microscience 1090 so I put in a 2010 chip, ran the 
1090 for a few days, then put the 4096 back in.  Guess what?  No more
hard disk problems.  Hmmm....  I put the original 1010 back in ...
problems came back.  I put in a different 1010 ... still disk problems.
Reformat the drive ... still problems.  2010 back in, problems went away.
Reformat the 4096 ... bad blocks went away.  That was six months ago.
*NO* more problems on this disk.

Beats me.  You figure it out.

Jan
---
jan at bagend | gatech!bagend!jan | h (404)434-1335 | w (404)425-5700

	Humankind cannot bear very much reality.   T. S. Eliot