Talk:Run-length limited

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.

are bytes encoded individually or as a stream?????

The question is unclear. BITS are encoded as a stream.

---

This article is silly. All magnetic media recording codes are RLL codes. If it imposes a limit on the run length, it's RLL! For example, FM is a rate-1/2 (0,1) RLL code and MFM is a rate-1/2 (1,3) RLL code. Group Code Recording is, as the article says, a rate-4/5 (0,2) RLL code. Other popular ones are the rate-1/2 (2,7) RLL code (the original "RLL") and the rate-2/3 (1,7) RLL code.

Then folks developed PRML techniques that made (0,k) RLL codes more feasible, and that's what everyone uses on hard drives these days.

A lot of these techniques were developed at IBM, who were always pushing storage capacity limits in their mainframe heyday.

The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that all such codes assuming NRZI encoding afterwards, so a 1 bit is a transition, and a 0 bit is no transition. The minimum spacing between transitions d by (n+1 in an (n,k) code) is limited by the high-frequency response of the channel, while the laximum spacing (k+1 in an (n,k) RLL code) is limited by the clock-recovery jitter. (Even if the electronics have zero jitter, there is some in the source signal.)

Contradiction

First we have this statement: Run length limited codes were widely used in hard disk drives until the mid-1980's

Then this statement: Early disk drives used very simple encoding schemes, such as RLL (0,1) FM code, but higher density RLL (2,7) and RLL (1,7) codes became the de facto industry standard for hard disks by the early 1990s.

The first statement suggests that RLL was not widely used in hard drives after the mid 80s, whereas the second suggests they have been the defacto standard since the early 90s.

How can both of these statements be true?

John Elson (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is wikipedia! In all seriousness, this article is a lot of words with not much use. And no, I won't improve it, because I'm not an expert; if I were, I would not have come here to try to find out what RLL _IS_, which I walk away still not knowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.15.23 (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It seems that the first statement was really talking about MFM, not all RLL. It seemed strange to single out MFM then talk about FM in the next paragraph, so I moved that line to the next paragraph to keep it in chronological order. I'm not an expert either, but I should think that 6 years on, what I've got there is the lesser of 2 evils. AngusCA (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Math error

a speed variation of even 0.01% - which is way better than what e.g. a floppy drive can possibly guarantee - could result in four bits being added to or removed from the 4,096 bit data stream. The math is wrong: 4 bits out of 4096 is 0.1%. I don't know how 0.1% compares to what a floppy drive can possibly guarantee, so I don't know how to fix this sentence.

Armin Rigo (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the specification for the Teac FD235HF floppy drive, the Long Term Speed Variation is given as +/-1.5%, and the Instantaneous Speed Variation as +/-2%, so 0.1% is far less than either. I've amended the percentage to 0.1% which is correct for 4 bytes in 4,096.

Kletzmer (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tape

As well as I know it, NRZI was used on magnetic tape for many years. IBM used it for 7 track tape, and 800BPI 9 track tape. For odd parity tape, there is a transition in at least one track for each character, so it doesn't have the same problem as disks. It is still a problem, as tape heads can get out of alignment, especially between drives. 800 BPI drives were the least reliable as far as data errors. (7 track tapes also came in even parity, where you can't write the character with all zero bits. The coding was arranged to allow for that. Disks normally use serial data on a single track, so NRZI doesn't work so well. IBM did use it on their first disk drive, though. Gah4 (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

m,n wut?

"RLL codes are defined by four main parameters: m, n, d, k. The first two, m/n, refer to the rate of the code, while the remaining two specify the minimal d and maximal k number of zeroes between consecutive ones."

m & n are never defined. "rate of the code" is never defined.

2600:1700:C280:3FD0:D515:80CB:4F39:4EBB (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]