I thought you might be interested in a similar problem I'm having. I've also got an external HD USB 2.0 enclosure that works, but only if I rmmod ehci_hcd i.e. slowly in legacy mode. Otherwise it works fine.
It is listed as: T: Bus=01 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=01 Cnt=02 Dev#= 4 Spd=12 MxCh= 0 D: Ver= 2.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS=64 #Cfgs= 1 P: Vendor=05e3 ProdID=0702 Rev= 0.02 S: Manufacturer=Genesyslogic S: Product=USB Mass Storage Device C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr= 4mA I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=06 Prot=50 Driver=usb-storage E: Ad=81(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 64 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=02(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 64 Ivl=0ms and attached as: usb 1-2: new full speed USB device using address 4 Initializing USB Mass Storage driver... scsi0 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices Vendor: Genesys Model: USB to IDE Disk Rev: 0002 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02 SCSI device sda: 117210240 512-byte hdwr sectors (60012 MB) sda: assuming Write Enabled sda: assuming drive cache: write through /dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0: p1 < p5 p6 > Attached scsi removable disk sda at scsi0, channel 0, id 0, lun 0 Attached scsi generic sg0 at scsi0, channel 0, id 0, lun 0, type 0 USB Mass Storage device found at 4 usbcore: registered new driver usb-storage USB Mass Storage support registered. I'm running a debian 2.6.7-k7 Kernel and have following controllers: 0000:00:03.0 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 1.0 Controller (rev 0f) (prog-if 10 [OHCI]) 0000:00:03.1 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 1.0 Controller (rev 0f) (prog-if 10 [OHCI]) 0000:00:03.2 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 2.0 Controller (prog-if 20 [EHCI]) Regards, Chris On Thursday 05 August 2004 18:32, Gregory Gulik wrote: > In my experience the model, but more important the chipset inside, makes > a HUGE difference in the stability of USB. I use a couple different > large hard drives in a USB 2.0 enclosure as a network backup device. I > tried several USB 2.0 cards and two enclosures before I got something > that's nearly 100% reliable. > > The set-up I'm successfully using now is documented here: > > http://www.gagme.com/greg/linux/network-backup.php > > I'm using Fedora Core 2 with the 2.6 kernel now but it did work just > fine with Fedora Core 1 with the 2.4 kernel as well. > > Hope that helps. > > Paul Siegel wrote: > > Just thought I'd supply a bit more information regarding tests I've done > > with this thing. I'm really curious if anyone knows if this particular > > brand of usb hard drive enclosure causes problems with linux or if it's > > all usb hard drive enclosures that are flakey. I'd gladly exchange the > > thing for a different brand if that were the case. > > > > So, last night I transferred about 5 GB to the drive from an iMac > > running OS 9. I'm guessing the iMac only has usb 1.1, as the transfer > > took several hours. I then plugged the thing into a new iBook running > > OS X, and was able to copy down the 5 GB of stuff in about ten minutes. > > > > Out of curiosity, I then attached the drive to my Mandrake 9.2 system, > > which I'm guessing is also only usb 1.1, and started copying the 5 GB > > down. It seemed to be going ok and it was around 10 PM, so I decided to > > let it just copy overnight and went to bed. The next morning at around 7 > > AM I checked it and it was still copying. Now, I know usb 1.1 is slow, > > but I should think it could copy 5 GB in less than 9 hours. More > > interestingly though, I thought, was that it was still copying -- it > > didn't hang. I guess that only happens when I try to write to the drive. > > > > Finally, as one last test case, I plugged the drive into my Mandrake 10 > > system which definitely has usb 2.0. I started copying the files, and a > > few minutes later it appeared to have finished. However, I discovered > > that in fact only 18 MB had been copied, and I could no longer even > > access the drive until I unmounted it, unplugged the usb connection and > > reconnected it. My /var/log/mesages file was full of this message over > > and over: > > > > Aug 5 10:38:55 localhost kernel: invalid access to FAT (entry > > 0xe34ba252) > > Aug 5 10:40:55 localhost kernel: FAT: Filesystem panic (dev sda1) > > > > The entry number there changed dramatically from one message to the next. > > > > Anyway, I don't know if any of this information is helpful, but I > > figured I'd post it in case it sparked any ideas in somebody's head. I'd > > appreciate any help I can get. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now, one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-users
