Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:53:44 -0400 Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At last! Not only am I not inebriated, but I remembered where I read what I based my missive on. :-) http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/man/README/README.ATAPI An extract from which goes as follows: The ATAPI standard describes method of sending SCSI commands over IDE transport with some small limitations to the real SCSI standard. SCSI commands are send via IDE transport using the 'ATA packet' command. There is no SCSI emulation - ATAPI drives include native SCSI command support. For this reason, sending SCSI commands to ATAPI drives is the native method of supporting ATAPI devices. Just imagine that IDE is one of many SCSI low level transport mechanisms. This is a list of some known SCSI transports: - Good old Parallel SCSI 50/68 pin (what most people call SCSI) - SCSI over fiber optics (e.g. FACL - there are others too) - SCSI over a copper variant of FCAL (used in modern servers) - SCSI over IEEE 1394 (Fire Wire) - SCSI over USB - SCSI over IDE (ATAPI) As you now see, the use of the naming convention ATAPI-SCSI emulation is a little bit misleading. It should rather be called: IDE-SCSI host adapter emulation Sooo, hopefully I was wrong, but I knew what I really meant(?). I can live with that. ;) I remember reading some time ago about how SCSI specifications get borrowed from on occasion in the creation of other specifications/standards. A quick google search produces: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec8.html : which I am pretty sure was the same thing I read before. Later, Seeker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
Greg wrote: which device do you write to ? (there's a reason I ask, I'll elucidate when sober...^hic)};) I call cdrecord as follows: cdrecord --force dev=ATA:1,0,0 that means, the ATA:1,0,0 device hmm, as I think of that, I guess that's a scsi naming scheme; I think I read writing to /dev/cdrom would work to but I guess I never changed my cdrom-writing script to do so -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
Joris Huizer wrote: Greg wrote: which device do you write to ? (there's a reason I ask, I'll elucidate when sober...^hic)};) I call cdrecord as follows: cdrecord --force dev=ATA:1,0,0 that means, the ATA:1,0,0 device hmm, as I think of that, I guess that's a scsi naming scheme; I think I read writing to /dev/cdrom would work to but I guess I never changed my cdrom-writing script to do so At last! Not only am I not inebriated, but I remembered where I read what I based my missive on. :-) http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/man/README/README.ATAPI An extract from which goes as follows: The ATAPI standard describes method of sending SCSI commands over IDE transport with some small limitations to the real SCSI standard. SCSI commands are send via IDE transport using the 'ATA packet' command. There is no SCSI emulation - ATAPI drives include native SCSI command support. For this reason, sending SCSI commands to ATAPI drives is the native method of supporting ATAPI devices. Just imagine that IDE is one of many SCSI low level transport mechanisms. This is a list of some known SCSI transports: - Good old Parallel SCSI 50/68 pin (what most people call SCSI) - SCSI over fiber optics (e.g. FACL - there are others too) - SCSI over a copper variant of FCAL (used in modern servers) - SCSI over IEEE 1394 (Fire Wire) - SCSI over USB - SCSI over IDE (ATAPI) As you now see, the use of the naming convention ATAPI-SCSI emulation is a little bit misleading. It should rather be called: IDE-SCSI host adapter emulation Sooo, hopefully I was wrong, but I knew what I really meant(?). HTH -- Ciao 4 now, Greg. #| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] # # --o-o-0-o-o-- Linux and Internet since 1992# # To Live, To Love, To Learn, To Leave A Legacy. # -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
Seeker5528 wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:17:50 -0400 Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't you think it would be more confusing to tell people that SCSI emulation was built in to ide-cd. If you tell them that then they will be expecting to have srX devices for their drives 1) I have symlinks: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /dev/sr* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr0 - scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/cd lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr1 - scsi/host1/bus0/target0/lun0/cd I have not had any srX links since I started using a 2.6.X kernel and stopped loading the ide-scsi module, so clearly there is no scsi emulation here. Since I upgraded to a DVD burner I have 3 links cdrom, dvd, and cdrw all pointing to /dev/hdb. If you actually have SCSI CD/CD-RW, DVD/DVD-RW drives then srX devices will be created with 2.6 kernels because they actually are SCSI devices. $ uname -a Linux uniq 2.6.15 #1 PREEMPT Tue Jan 3 22:06:09 AST 2006 i686 GNU/Linux ===^^ (self-compiled) $ scsiadd -p Attached devices: Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: YAMAHA Model: CRW8424S Rev: 1.0d Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02 Host: scsi1 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: HL-DT-ST Model: DVDRAM GSA-4040B Rev: A300 Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02 0,0,0 = (real)SCSI cdrw 1,0,0 = (real)ATAPI dvdrw I will refrain from providing my (probably superfluous and confusatory) symlinks/devices list, as, due to the sheer damned annoying nature of all this scsi-emu-bullshit, I've been messing about with udev. As of right now, both drives perform as expected, although I've thrown away several sets of coasters getting this far, over the last few YEARS. A decade and a half or so ago, I leapt into solving knotty configuration problems in Linux with exuberant gusto, but, now, SIGH I just don't have the resources/energy to spend on bench/spare/testbed boxen. I gave up SysAdmin-Contracting to spend more time with my Cocoa Nutmeg Trees. :-) If you are using a 2.6.x kernel, have IDE CD types of drives, are not loading ide-scsi, and those drives are showing up as sr0 and sr1 then, hmmm, that is very interesting. Later, Seeker -- Ciao 4 now, Greg. #| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] # # --o-o-0-o-o-- Linux and Internet since 1992# # To Live, To Love, To Learn, To Leave A Legacy. # AlexJones,NoamChomsky,9/11,Oil,Arms,Drugs,GREED. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
Greg wrote: Seeker5528 wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:17:50 -0400 Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't you think it would be more confusing to tell people that SCSI emulation was built in to ide-cd. If you tell them that then they will be expecting to have srX devices for their drives 1) I have symlinks: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /dev/sr* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr0 - scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/cd lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr1 - scsi/host1/bus0/target0/lun0/cd I have not had any srX links since I started using a 2.6.X kernel and stopped loading the ide-scsi module, so clearly there is no scsi emulation here. Since I upgraded to a DVD burner I have 3 links cdrom, dvd, and cdrw all pointing to /dev/hdb. If you actually have SCSI CD/CD-RW, DVD/DVD-RW drives then srX devices will be created with 2.6 kernels because they actually are SCSI devices. $ uname -a Linux uniq 2.6.15 #1 PREEMPT Tue Jan 3 22:06:09 AST 2006 i686 GNU/Linux ===^^ (self-compiled) $ scsiadd -p Attached devices: Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: YAMAHA Model: CRW8424S Rev: 1.0d Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02 Host: scsi1 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: HL-DT-ST Model: DVDRAM GSA-4040B Rev: A300 Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02 0,0,0 = (real)SCSI cdrw 1,0,0 = (real)ATAPI dvdrw I will refrain from providing my (probably superfluous and confusatory) symlinks/devices list, as, due to the sheer damned annoying nature of all this scsi-emu-bullshit, I've been messing about with udev. As of right now, both drives perform as expected, although I've thrown away several sets of coasters getting this far, over the last few YEARS. A decade and a half or so ago, I leapt into solving knotty configuration problems in Linux with exuberant gusto, but, now, SIGH I just don't have the resources/energy to spend on bench/spare/testbed boxen. I gave up SysAdmin-Contracting to spend more time with my Cocoa Nutmeg Trees. :-) You are still getting scsi emulation because you have it selected in your kernel config. (that option is under ATA/...) I'm running a self-compiled 2.6.8 kernel with which I am able to write to cdroms; it doesn't have any scsi stuff (scsiadd doesn't report anything there) Instead it uses the ide-cd module; HTH, Joris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
Joris Huizer wrote: Greg wrote: Seeker5528 wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:17:50 -0400 Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't you think it would be more confusing to tell people that SCSI emulation was built in to ide-cd. If you tell them that then they will be expecting to have srX devices for their drives 1) I have symlinks: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /dev/sr* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr0 - scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/cd lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr1 - scsi/host1/bus0/target0/lun0/cd I have not had any srX links since I started using a 2.6.X kernel and stopped loading the ide-scsi module, so clearly there is no scsi emulation here. Since I upgraded to a DVD burner I have 3 links cdrom, dvd, and cdrw all pointing to /dev/hdb. If you actually have SCSI CD/CD-RW, DVD/DVD-RW drives then srX devices will be created with 2.6 kernels because they actually are SCSI devices. $ uname -a Linux uniq 2.6.15 #1 PREEMPT Tue Jan 3 22:06:09 AST 2006 i686 GNU/Linux ===^^ (self-compiled) $ scsiadd -p Attached devices: Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: YAMAHA Model: CRW8424S Rev: 1.0d Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02 Host: scsi1 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: HL-DT-ST Model: DVDRAM GSA-4040B Rev: A300 Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02 0,0,0 = (real)SCSI cdrw 1,0,0 = (real)ATAPI dvdrw I will refrain from providing my (probably superfluous and confusatory) symlinks/devices list, as, due to the sheer damned annoying nature of all this scsi-emu-bullshit, I've been messing about with udev. As of right now, both drives perform as expected, although I've thrown away several sets of coasters getting this far, over the last few YEARS. A decade and a half or so ago, I leapt into solving knotty configuration problems in Linux with exuberant gusto, but, now, SIGH I just don't have the resources/energy to spend on bench/spare/testbed boxen. I gave up SysAdmin-Contracting to spend more time with my Cocoa Nutmeg Trees. :-) You are still getting scsi emulation because you have it selected in your kernel config. (that option is under ATA/...) which device do you write to ? (there's a reason I ask, I'll elucidate when sober...^hic)};) I'm running a self-compiled 2.6.8 kernel with which I am able to write to cdroms; it doesn't have any scsi stuff (scsiadd doesn't report anything there) Instead it uses the ide-cd module; HTH, Joris -- Ciao 4 now, Greg. #| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] # # --o-o-0-o-o-- Linux and Internet since 1992# # To Live, To Love, To Learn, To Leave A Legacy. # AlexJones,NoamChomsky,9/11,Oil,Arms,Drugs,GREED. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
Seeker5528 wrote: On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:32:17 -0400 Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My experience, FWIW, Simply put: In kernel 2.4, ide-scsi module, we got used to the scsi-emulation concept. Whereas, In kernel 2.6, we were (somewhat confusingly, IMO) told the above, i.e.: SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6.. IMHO this _should_ have said something along the lines of: SCSI emulation is now built-in, in v2.6 'ide-cd' [compiled-in or as a module], so 'ide-scsi' is NO LONGER REQUIRED to achieve the _still_ _necessary_ SCSI emulation. Don't you think it would be more confusing to tell people that SCSI emulation was built in to ide-cd. If you tell them that then they will be expecting to have srX devices for their drives 1) I have symlinks: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /dev/sr* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr0 - scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/cd lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr1 - scsi/host1/bus0/target0/lun0/cd 2) If I thought what I suggested was MORE confusing, I would NOT have suggested it. . Scsi emulation always seemed like a kludge to me anyway that should have only been used as the exception instead of the rule when the proper driver was broken for a particular device. I think people would be a lot less confused if the upstream guy doing the cdrtools stuff would get over it and do away with the big scary sounding message that comes up with 2.6 kernels to the effect of 'oooh you don't have scsi emulation this might not work' just because he would prefer to only support scsi. That is PRECISELY why 2) above, my message was placed on usenet merely for future reference by googlers needing help with THE WAY THINGS ACTUALLY ARE IN REAL LIFE. :-) Later, Seeker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:17:50 -0400 Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't you think it would be more confusing to tell people that SCSI emulation was built in to ide-cd. If you tell them that then they will be expecting to have srX devices for their drives 1) I have symlinks: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /dev/sr* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr0 - scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/cd lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 2006-01-11 13:52 /dev/sr1 - scsi/host1/bus0/target0/lun0/cd I have not had any srX links since I started using a 2.6.X kernel and stopped loading the ide-scsi module, so clearly there is no scsi emulation here. Since I upgraded to a DVD burner I have 3 links cdrom, dvd, and cdrw all pointing to /dev/hdb. If you actually have SCSI CD/CD-RW, DVD/DVD-RW drives then srX devices will be created with 2.6 kernels because they actually are SCSI devices. If you are using a 2.6.x kernel, have IDE CD types of drives, are not loading ide-scsi, and those drives are showing up as sr0 and sr1 then, hmmm, that is very interesting. Later, Seeker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:32:17 -0400 Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My experience, FWIW, Simply put: In kernel 2.4, ide-scsi module, we got used to the scsi-emulation concept. Whereas, In kernel 2.6, we were (somewhat confusingly, IMO) told the above, i.e.: SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6.. IMHO this _should_ have said something along the lines of: SCSI emulation is now built-in, in v2.6 'ide-cd' [compiled-in or as a module], so 'ide-scsi' is NO LONGER REQUIRED to achieve the _still_ _necessary_ SCSI emulation. Don't you think it would be more confusing to tell people that SCSI emulation was built in to ide-cd. If you tell them that then they will be expecting to have srX devices for their drives. Scsi emulation always seemed like a kludge to me anyway that should have only been used as the exception instead of the rule when the proper driver was broken for a particular device. I think people would be a lot less confused if the upstream guy doing the cdrtools stuff would get over it and do away with the big scary sounding message that comes up with 2.6 kernels to the effect of 'oooh you don't have scsi emulation this might not work' just because he would prefer to only support scsi. Later, Seeker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
On Thursday, 5 January 2006 at 16:32:17 -0400, Greg wrote: deletia... My experience, FWIW, Simply put: In kernel 2.4, ide-scsi module, we got used to the scsi-emulation concept. Whereas, In kernel 2.6, we were (somewhat confusingly, IMO) told the above, i.e.: SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6.. IMHO this _should_ have said something along the lines of: SCSI emulation is now built-in, in v2.6 'ide-cd' [compiled-in or as a module], so 'ide-scsi' is NO LONGER REQUIRED to achieve the _still_ _necessary_ SCSI emulation. That _is_ much clearer. SOo, In xcdroast running as root, [you CAN figure out how.] use the 0,0,0 device, and _NOT_ the ATAPI:0.0.0 device. Substitute your own bus,id,lun numbers to suit your box. I can burn dvd-r and cdr/rw fine. Well, xcdroast lists the devices as ATAPI:0:1:0 etc. but somewhere in there I saw that it lists the scsi spec. (0,1,0 etc.) against each one, so perhaps it knows. It won't let me change it anyway. I did confirm that ide-cd is loaded. So I suppose all is well, really. Except that xcdroast has just become another process to freeze and refuse to die. That makes it the ninth today that I know of. Thanks for the clarification. -- richard Nuff~sed? HTH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
Richard Lyons wrote: On Friday, 30 December 2005 at 21:55:27 -0700, Jules Dubois wrote: On Friday 30 December 2005 09:24, Richard Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thursday, 29 December 2005 at 22:12:26 -0700, Jules Dubois wrote: [...] SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6. I keep reading this, but xcdroast and so on still complain every time that I should use SCSI emulation even though the kernel is 2.6.x. I haven't used xcdroast, so I can't say. Does it work without SCSI emulation? Yes, it seemed to work usually. I take the precaution of setting a very low speed, just in case. deletia... My experience, FWIW, Simply put: In kernel 2.4, ide-scsi module, we got used to the scsi-emulation concept. Whereas, In kernel 2.6, we were (somewhat confusingly, IMO) told the above, i.e.: SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6.. IMHO this _should_ have said something along the lines of: SCSI emulation is now built-in, in v2.6 'ide-cd' [compiled-in or as a module], so 'ide-scsi' is NO LONGER REQUIRED to achieve the _still_ _necessary_ SCSI emulation. SOo, In xcdroast running as root, [you CAN figure out how.] use the 0,0,0 device, and _NOT_ the ATAPI:0.0.0 device. Substitute your own bus,id,lun numbers to suit your box. I can burn dvd-r and cdr/rw fine. Nuff~sed? HTH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
On Friday, 30 December 2005 at 21:55:27 -0700, Jules Dubois wrote: On Friday 30 December 2005 09:24, Richard Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thursday, 29 December 2005 at 22:12:26 -0700, Jules Dubois wrote: [...] SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6. I keep reading this, but xcdroast and so on still complain every time that I should use SCSI emulation even though the kernel is 2.6.x. I haven't used xcdroast, so I can't say. Does it work without SCSI emulation? Yes, it seemed to work usually. I take the precaution of setting a very low speed, just in case. K3b gives me warnings about permissions on the cdrecord binaries, but I've discovered that I don't need to pay any attention. IIRC, there was some change in kernel 2.8.1 that caused the K3b developers to add the helpful warning; I think this was changed back in some subsequent kernel version. Is some other adjustment or setting needed instead? Does xcdroast use cdrecord to actually write the disks? cdrecord has and still has some useless messages about unresolved issues in Linux 2.5, which now represent nothing more than a bad attitude on the part of its developer. There were no issues and there are no issues. Yes, I believe the warnings come from cdrecord. They certainly also appear when I burn from the command line. I was under the impression that K3b was also a cdrecord frontend. To the author's credit, cdrecord is still an excellent program. I second that. I revert to using it directly whenever I get any snags with the gui tools. -- richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
On Friday 30 December 2005 09:24, Richard Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thursday, 29 December 2005 at 22:12:26 -0700, Jules Dubois wrote: [...] SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6. I keep reading this, but xcdroast and so on still complain every time that I should use SCSI emulation even though the kernel is 2.6.x. I haven't used xcdroast, so I can't say. Does it work without SCSI emulation? K3b gives me warnings about permissions on the cdrecord binaries, but I've discovered that I don't need to pay any attention. IIRC, there was some change in kernel 2.8.1 that caused the K3b developers to add the helpful warning; I think this was changed back in some subsequent kernel version. Is some other adjustment or setting needed instead? Does xcdroast use cdrecord to actually write the disks? cdrecord has and still has some useless messages about unresolved issues in Linux 2.5, which now represent nothing more than a bad attitude on the part of its developer. There were no issues and there are no issues. To the author's credit, cdrecord is still an excellent program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
On Thursday, 29 December 2005 at 22:12:26 -0700, Jules Dubois wrote: [...] SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6. I keep reading this, but xcdroast and so on still complain every time that I should use SCSI emulation even though the kernel is 2.6.x. Is some other adjustment or setting needed instead? -- richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 04:24:07PM +, Richard Lyons wrote: I keep reading this, but xcdroast and so on still complain every time that I should use SCSI emulation even though the kernel is 2.6.x. Is some other adjustment or setting needed instead? In the past, people on this list have said that it's a personal opinion of the Debian developer, not any actual known problem with the programs. -- Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
I have two optical devices in internal bays. ATAPI CD-R/RW 32X10 T.GA (/dev/hdc, ) at /media/cdrom0 [CD-R; CD-RW; CD-ROM][Error] [SAO; TAO; RAW; SAO/R16; RAW/R96R] ATAPI PIONEER DVD-RW DVR-103 1.90 (/dev/hdd, ) at /media/cdrom1 [CD-R; CD-RW; CD-ROM; DVD-ROM; DVD-R] [Error] [SAO; TAO] Even though I've been able to write to a dvd, I've had continuing issues with doing so. I've been doing more research and this is what I get down to: From /usr/share/doc/cdrecord/README.ATAPI.setup For current stable kernel 2.4.27 it gives instructions on how to setup an ATAPI CD-RW/DVD+-RW recorder on Debian. Trouble is they include lilo and I'm using grub. Then below it says (I think) that such is not needed with kernel 2.6.* and explains undoing the previous steps for 2.4.* What I get out of this is that maybe I should upgrade to kernel 2.6.* ??? Is this a good step for me and what all is involved? Thank you, Lee C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
On Thursday 29 December 2005 20:56, Chinook [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: For current stable kernel 2.4.27 it gives instructions on how to setup an ATAPI CD-RW/DVD+-RW recorder on Debian. Trouble is they include lilo and I'm using grub. Then below it says (I think) that such is not needed with kernel 2.6.* and explains undoing the previous steps for 2.4.* In the instructions for LILO and 2.4 you will see a kernel parameter for SCSI emulation for the writer(s). You can add the same parameter to GRUB if you need it. What I get out of this is that maybe I should upgrade to kernel 2.6.* ??? SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6. Whether you use GRUB or LILO, you don't need the emulation parameter. If you have it and you upgrade from 2.4 to 2.6, remove it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.* vs 2.6.* and ATAPI dvd question
Jules Dubois wrote: On Thursday 29 December 2005 20:56, Chinook [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: For current stable kernel 2.4.27 it gives instructions on how to setup an ATAPI CD-RW/DVD+-RW recorder on Debian. Trouble is they include lilo and I'm using grub. Then below it says (I think) that such is not needed with kernel 2.6.* and explains undoing the previous steps for 2.4.* In the instructions for LILO and 2.4 you will see a kernel parameter for SCSI emulation for the writer(s). You can add the same parameter to GRUB if you need it. What I get out of this is that maybe I should upgrade to kernel 2.6.* ??? SCSI emulation is not required in v2.6. Whether you use GRUB or LILO, you don't need the emulation parameter. If you have it and you upgrade from 2.4 to 2.6, remove it. Thanks for replying Jules, I guess I understood correctly, except for not knowing I could make the same changes to grub. Guess I'll have to look into what (and how) I can do with grub :-P Anyway, I decided to move on up to etch. I'll get my kernel upgrade and hopefully lessen some other issues. From what I've read it should be at least as stable for me as stable is now. I don't see any issues that would affect me so it should be a net gain. The system is downloading for the upgrade now and says it will take a couple hours, so it's time for a little nap. Thanks again, Lee C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
