Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!cit-vax!mangler From: mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (System Mangler) Newsgroups: comp.periphs Subject: Re: Super Eagles?? Not for me! ... (Come now...) Message-ID: <3214@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Date: Mon, 13-Jul-87 05:52:46 EDT Article-I.D.: cit-vax.3214 Posted: Mon Jul 13 05:52:46 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jul-87 01:44:38 EDT References: <673@uhccux.UUCP> <6066@hc.DSPO.GOV> Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 30 Summary: Fujitsu disk drive families In article <6066@hc.DSPO.GOV>, tomlin@hc.DSPO.GOV (Bob Tomlinson) writes: > An oversimplification is that the 2331/2333s are the 8" version of the > 2361s (Super Eagles). The 2333 is an RLL version of the 2322, just as the 2361 is an RLL version of the 2351, and the 2298 is an RLL version of the 2294. In each case, the geometry stayed the same, and the old and new drives look very similar. The family resemblance is striking even back to the previous generation, where they raised the number of platters (from the 2321 to the 2322, and the 2284 to the 2294). In both the 2333 and the 2298, they increased the flux density at the same time that they introduced RLL, to get double the density instead of the factor of 1.5 gained by RLL alone. > I guess what I'm saying is that Fujitsu and companies OEMing the Fujis > just seem to have jumped the gun (probably based on the Eagle's reputation) > and started shipping the drives too soon. When our 2298 started getting errors, I was shocked to find that it was only serial #28. I shudder to think how low the serial number might have been on the disk that didn't survive the moving truck... Either Emulex sold us a beta-test unit without saying so, or Fujitsu is just skipping the beta tests. Has anyone else had problems with the 2298? I love stories... (Actually, 1.5 years before troubles seems pretty good for an early-production drive). Don Speck speck@vlsi.caltech.edu {seismo,rutgers,ames}!cit-vax!speck