From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jun 29 22:21:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA04903 for current-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA04897 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:21:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id HAA24546; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:21:12 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA02949; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:57:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19970630065710.XV54411@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:57:10 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, current-users@NetBSD.ORG Cc: reilly@zeta.org.au (Andrew Reilly) Subject: Re: support for or experience of Fujitsu DynaMO drives? References: <199706300408.OAA00381@gurney.zeta.org.au> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.60_p2-3,5,8-9 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199706300408.OAA00381@gurney.zeta.org.au>; from Andrew Reilly on Jun 30, 1997 14:08:05 +1000 Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Andrew Reilly wrote: > Can anyone comment on whether the Fujitsu DynaMO > magneto-optical 640M drives work with FreeBSD or NetBSD? FreeBSD even has an own driver handling the slightly different requirements of removable media devices (od(4)). If this drive probes as T_OPTICAL (type 7), it should be automatically assigned to the od(4) driver. The plain sd(4) driver should work as well, but things like ignoring the first unit attention condition after a media change, or handling the insertion of a medium with a different size might fail, or at least cause annoying warnings. > There seems to be several varieties of media available, but > the types my local dealer has are the 230M and 640M. From a > quick study of the Fujitsu web site, the 128M, 230M and 540M > formats have 512-byte sectors, so I would not expect any > problems with these. I would expect the same. > The 640M capacity disks have 2k-byte sectors, though. I > know that most BSD filesystems make some pretty strong > assumptions about the size of sectors, but wondered whether > there were work-arounds in place. The filesystems don't make many assumptions about the sector size, but the filesystem implementations do. FreeBSD tries to handle some of the issues of sector sizes > 512 bytes, but i know it's not yet at the point where it should be. So it might work, but it might also fail. > I guess I could put a TAR archive on one of these even if an > FFS partition does not work? Sure, you can always use the raw device, with the appropriate block size. For a 2 KB medium, you should be able to create an ISO9660 filesystem and mount it without problems. :-) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)