1024 CYL versus WD2010

[Kevin O'Gorman]

In article <820 at bagend.UUCP> jan at bagend.UUCP (Jan Isley) writes:
> Prologue deleted
>
>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.

Dunno.  I've got a 4096 that I've been running with my 7300 for about 3
years.  I ran it for a while in a stock configuration, and for about a
year now with the P5.1 upgrade.  I had the disk die on me once with a
growing bad block table, but that turned out to have been caused by
humidity damage (I used to live in New Jersey, where some summer days
are distinctly moist).  It has had the original 1010 the whole time.

The current replacement disk had been running fine for two years.  Nary
a glitch or a retry in the log.

You figure it.