Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!bucsb.bu.edu!madd From: madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.periphs Subject: Re: Lot's of questions Message-ID: <675@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Dec-86 14:26:52 EST Article-I.D.: bucsb.675 Posted: Thu Dec 18 14:26:52 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Dec-86 00:31:04 EST References: <9073FIB@PSUVM> <524@brl-sem.ARPA> Reply-To: madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) Organization: ODO (Organization for the Disorganization of Organization) Lines: 42 Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:582 comp.periphs:64 In article <524@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie) writes: >In article <9073FIB@PSUVM>, FIB@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >> 2) Has anybody had any experience (good or bad) with the Bernoulli Box? My >> understanding is that it acts like a hard disk, but is removable. Is this >> true? If so, it may be the answer to the above data security problem. >> Also, any details on its operation would be appreciated. Since I may be >> working with some good size files, how is access speed as compared to a >> standard hard disk? >Yeah, I wrote the driver for the IOMEGA 10.5 for XENIX. True it acts >like any other SCSI hard disk except that it is SLOW! Despite what the >advertisments claim, the data rates are no where near a decent hard disk. >[...] The performance is at best that of a floppy disk. NO! When I used the Bernoulli Box 10+10, it ran plenty faster than a floppy, and with about the same apparent speed as the IBM PC XT using the supplied 10mb drive. I don't think the drive quite held up to the speed IOmega claimed, but it wasn't poor. The only thing that slows it down is when it stops spinning after 5min (I think) of inactivity. Then it has to speed up again, which takes some time. Note that I am telling this from the user standpoint, not programmer. To FIB@PSUVM.BITNET: Want to make your driver much, much faster? Have it seek for one sector on the current track if the drive isn't used in awhile. This way you will stop the BBox from stopping and will improve overall performance. Cost: Wear and tear on the disk, but minimal, and your driver will be a little bigger because you need junk area for the sector you read. I suppose you could reread the last sector and stash the data in the same buffer area that you had previously used, too. Note that the wear on the drive is negligible: they've run for weeks at a stretch in reviews with absolutely no problems. If there are technical problems to this, don't blame me. I used this technique on a driver for a floppy and it worked great. The controller would stop the floppy after 2 or 3 seconds of dead time, so requesting a sector ever second (by timer interrupt) kept it running. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% - Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker - UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd | ARPANET: madd@bucsb.bu.edu CSNET: madd%bucsb@bu-cs | BITNET: cscc71c@bostonu -------------------------------+---+------------------------------------ "Oh beer, oh beer." -- Me | [=(BEER) <- Bud the Beer (cheers!)