Hello lists,
(a mail for the archives)
I've posted in the past about problems with these enclosures - increasing the
delay seems to fix it, albeit temporarily. The further you go in using the
disk in such an enclosure, the higher the udelay() had to be - atleast that's
what I'm seeing here (I've got two of these now :/ )
One permanent fix is adding a powered USB-hub in between the drive enclosures
and the computer. Since I've done that, I've no longer seen any of the
problems (i've attached the 'fault' log). Weird but true, since the drives
come with their own powersupply.
Hope this helps anyone in the future running into the same problem.
--
"To vacillate or not to vacillate, that is the question ... or is it?"
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Jan De Luyck wrote:
> Hello lists,
>
> (a mail for the archives)
>
> I've posted in the past about problems with these enclosures - increasing the
> delay seems to fix it, albeit temporarily. The further you go in using the
> disk in such an enclosure, the higher the udelay() had to be - atleast that's
> what I'm seeing here (I've got two of these now :/ )
>
> One permanent fix is adding a powered USB-hub in between the drive enclosures
> and the computer. Since I've done that, I've no longer seen any of the
> problems (i've attached the 'fault' log). Weird but true, since the drives
> come with their own powersupply.
>
> Hope this helps anyone in the future running into the same problem.
This one certainly goes into the Bizarro file.
Just out of curiosity -- when you use the powered hub, does the drive work
even if you remove that delay completely?
Alan Stern
On Sunday 04 September 2005 03:53, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> This one certainly goes into the Bizarro file.
>
> Just out of curiosity -- when you use the powered hub, does the drive work
> even if you remove that delay completely?
I haven't tested that. I will, next time I need the drive, which will probably
be in about a week.
I just wanted to make my backup, and finally managed to do that. I don't get
it either what's really wrong with these chips - but it was one of the
recommendations i found on the linux-usb device list pages. And it seems to
work.
If now only I can get the firewire part of one of them working without
serialize_io, then I can use that too.
Jan
--
A billion here, a billion there -- pretty soon it adds up to real money.
-- Sen. Everett Dirksen, on the U.S. defense budget
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:53:19PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Jan De Luyck wrote:
>
> > I've posted in the past about problems with these enclosures - increasing the
> > delay seems to fix it, albeit temporarily. The further you go in using the
> > disk in such an enclosure, the higher the udelay() had to be - atleast that's
> > what I'm seeing here (I've got two of these now :/ )
> >
> > One permanent fix is adding a powered USB-hub in between the drive enclosures
> > and the computer. Since I've done that, I've no longer seen any of the
> > problems (i've attached the 'fault' log). Weird but true, since the drives
> > come with their own powersupply.
> >
> > Hope this helps anyone in the future running into the same problem.
>
> This one certainly goes into the Bizarro file.
>
> Just out of curiosity -- when you use the powered hub, does the drive work
> even if you remove that delay completely?
Aren't USB 2.0 hubs more "intelligent" as part of the requirement to
support 1.1 and 2.0 devices? I wonder if it's really a 2.0 drive, and if
the timing is different enough with the hub to make a difference.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [email protected]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
THEY CASTRATED MY QUAKE BITS! I WANT THEM BACK!!!!
-- Greg
User Friendly, 3/27/1998
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 14:04:46 -0700, Matthew Dharm <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:53:19PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Jan De Luyck wrote:
>>
>> > I've posted in the past about problems with these enclosures - increasing the
>> > delay seems to fix it, albeit temporarily. The further you go in using the
>> > disk in such an enclosure, the higher the udelay() had to be - atleast that's
>> > what I'm seeing here (I've got two of these now :/ )
>> >
>> > One permanent fix is adding a powered USB-hub in between the drive enclosures
>> > and the computer. Since I've done that, I've no longer seen any of the
>> > problems (i've attached the 'fault' log). Weird but true, since the drives
>> > come with their own powersupply.
>> >
>> > Hope this helps anyone in the future running into the same problem.
>>
>> This one certainly goes into the Bizarro file.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity -- when you use the powered hub, does the drive work
>> even if you remove that delay completely?
>
>Aren't USB 2.0 hubs more "intelligent" as part of the requirement to
>support 1.1 and 2.0 devices? I wonder if it's really a 2.0 drive, and if
>the timing is different enough with the hub to make a difference.
Fixed a USB powered (two USB plugs) Genesys based 2.5" HDD enclosure with
extra 5V supply bypass capacitors, the HDD was shutting down without loss
of data with a 'soft' 5V supply. Now USB drive works everywhere except a
laptop with a single USB. HDD uses 700mA, USB is spec'd 500mA per socket.
Some bugs are the hardware :o)
Grant.