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

Re: cdrecord burning and 2.6.10



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote on 27.03.2005 14:38:
| Hi!
|
| I have a strange problem with cdrecord (Debian Sarge cdrecord
| 2.0+a34-2) and kernel 2.6.10.
|
| I boot with append="hdc=ide-scsi apm=on" and have in /etc/modules:
| ide-scsi
|
| something like: cdrecord -v dev=0,0,0 blank=fast rescue.iso
| always worked.
|
| Then I tried 2.6.10. Then doing that caused:
|
| Sense Code: 0x08 Qual 0x03 (logical unit communication crc error
| (ultra-dma/32)) Fru 0x0
|
| Only on 2.6.10, not on 2.6.9.
|
| When I turn dma off:
| hdparm -d0 /dev/hdc
|
| The error goes away.
|
| Can anybody throw light on this?
|
| Thanks!

I don't know what this might have to do with your DMA settings, but jic
you haven't heard it yet:
There was an incompatibility with the pseudo-scsi transport provided by
ide-scsi with changes to the kernel introduce with 2.6.8. These are
fixed for 2.6.10 afaik, but nevertheless linus himself regards ide-scsi
as deprecated and has called it `a bad hack'.
To be fair, this may additionally related to some personal differences
between him and Jörg Schilling, the creator of ide-scsi. But personally
I consider the 'real' ATAPI interface to be the better choice, also
because of the irrational opinion that if Microsoft does it in their
software, the probablity of it being a good thing is pretty low (scsi
emulation, I mean).

So my advice is to do a `cdrecord -scanbus dev=ATA' or cdrecord
`cdrecord -scanbus dev=ATAPI' and the use the scsibus,target,lun values
that gives you like so cdrecord dev=ATAPI:0,0,0 (assuming it's the ATAPI
interface works and -scanbus finds your recorder on 0,0,0 of course)

Cheers, Roman.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCRq+Cn0kyIx7rF68RAhtaAJ4qWsBJsC3nzmKVK2bwrbvzD131XgCgv7Us
REktUNZWLHDR+uyLJJBqHHQ=
=z34u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: