From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 21 02:54:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EAA016A4CE for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A326B43D5D for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:54:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) i3L9sYPo022246 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:54:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3L9rqhn043943 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:53:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3L9rpWN011532; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:53:51 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i3L9rmU7011531; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:53:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:53:48 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: "Daniel O'Connor" Message-ID: <20040421095347.GP5279@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <200404192247.48015.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20040420085805.GA5279@cicely12.cicely.de> <200404211329.29681.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200404211329.29681.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.2-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.61 X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on cicely5.cicely.de cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: ticso@cicely.de Subject: Re: Detecting 'floppy' like umass devices X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:54:54 -0000 On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:29:29PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:28, Bernd Walter wrote: > > > I am wondering if there is any way of telling if a given umass device is > > > a floppy drive (or wants to look like one) - eg I have a USB FDD which > > > I imagine should fall into the same basket. > > > > What do do you mean with "wants to look like one". > > In which way does a floppy look different from other direct access > > drives? > > They all read and store direct access data. > > Partially to handle things like fdformat, and density selection, but also from > a user point of view, ie it would be nice if it appeared as /dev/fdX. camcontrol format? OK - density has to be configured raw. Do USB floppies support different formats anyway? > IMHO it's not obvious (and dangerous) to tell mtools that a: = /dev/da0 but > that's what I have to do if I want to use my USB FDD with it. That's what I have to face with my MO drives since years. And it's the same story that you can overwrite the wrong streamer tape, ... The real point that is missing here is working hardwiring of USB mass storage devices. Plus I never liked ad0 vs. da0 problematic - typos can me made too quick. But that's the way is is: You are root. > > > I note that you get wacky values from fdisk when you try and read > > > partition table from them too.. > > > > > > On another note my USB floppy drive does 2k/sec in FreeBSD :( > > > > Sound like another instance of msdosfs does no clustering and drive > > is too stupid to get speed without. > > IIRC there were some work on this point, but I don't now the state. > > Check the speed with dd and different blocksizes. > > This IS with dd :) > > I did a few tests.. > Block Size | Speed > ===========+=========== > 0.5k | 2.2k/sec > 1 k | 4.4k/sec > 2 k | 8.0k/sec > 4 k | 12.6k/sec > 8 k | 17.7k/sec > 16 k | 21.8k/sec > 32 k | 23.9k/sec > 64 k | 26.2k/sec > > Bleh :( Yes that drive would massivly win from IO clustering. UFS should work fine, but msdosfs... -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de