[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ide-scsi -> write_g1: scsi sendcmd: fatal error

Joerg Schilling wrote:
"Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> wrote:

  cdrecord -scanbus
Full record.
Something like this ?

        0,0,0     0) 'TSSTcorp' 'CDDVDW SH-S203B ' 'SB00' Removable CD-ROM
        0,1,0     1) *

(This is a SATA attached drive. It appears
  as SCSI without ide-scsi emulation.)

  eject /dev/sr0
Then try
  cdrecord dev=/dev/sr0 -dao ...
rather than
  cdrecord dev=0,0,0 -dao ...

Is there any reson to recommend _unsupported_ command line usage?

Unsupported, undocumented, self-written, run as root... for problems any method which provides useful information is appropriate. This is not endorsement for production use, only a suggestion for characterizing the problem. Note, I don't say "solving" but do imply "understanding."

cdrecord works just fine out of the box if you either _don't_ use dev= at all
or id you use the official SCSI device syntax.

It works fine "out of the box" providing I want to use the burner it chooses. Having more than one is no longer unusual, a number of systems come with a reader and a burner these days.

As to "official," I have no doubt that you can cite some organization which says to do things the way you do, and you have decided they do it your way and so are official. I'm old enough to remember SCSI "back when," and where were always four numbers, not the three you choose to support. These were the slot number, the bus number, the device number and the LUN number, and that was back when device number was 0..7 and LUNs often selected 556bpi tape drives.

If it does not work this way, there is a bug in the kernel code.


E. Robert Bogusta
 It seemed like a good idea at the time

Reply to: