On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 16:30 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > > Before we embark on elaborate hacks, why don't we just make the capacity
> > > writeable (by root) in sysfs from userspace (will require block
> From: James Bottomley
> Before we embark on elaborate hacks, why don't we just make the capacity
> writeable (by root) in sysfs from userspace (will require block change)?
> We can then encode all the nasty heuristics (including gpt reading) in
> userspace as a udev rule.
Looking in from the o
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 16:30 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > Before we embark on elaborate hacks, why don't we just make the capacity
> > writeable (by root) in sysfs from userspace (will require block change)?
> > We can then encode all the nasty heurist
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
> Before we embark on elaborate hacks, why don't we just make the capacity
> writeable (by root) in sysfs from userspace (will require block change)?
> We can then encode all the nasty heuristics (including gpt reading) in
> userspace as a udev rule.
Tha
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 15:05 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>
> > > From: Alan Stern
> > >
> > > On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > > > Is there an 'easy' way to override the detected size of a storage
> > > > device from userspace? If we had that
> From: Alan Stern
> Anyway, I can try writing a patch to add this capability. We'll see if
> it can solve your problem.
Unfortunately, I think there is genuine value in such a hack. E.g.,
I've got two USB-to-SATA adapters. One works correctly. One does
not. But at this point, I can't atta
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014, Matthew Dharm wrote
> I was thinking of something that could notice a USB device which is formatted
> NTFS and has a partition table and filesystem that indicates a much bigger
> capacity than what the drive reports. Under this circumstances, you could do
> something like po
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > From: Alan Stern
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > > Is there an 'easy' way to override the detected size of a storage
> > > device from userspace? If we had that, someone could write a helper
> > > application which looked for t
> From: Alan Stern
>
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > Is there an 'easy' way to override the detected size of a storage
> > device from userspace? If we had that, someone could write a helper
> > application which looked for this particular fubar and try to Do The
> > Right Thing(
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> On 14-08-30 05:15 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> >
> >> Is there an 'easy' way to override the detected size of a storage
> >> device from userspace? If we had that, someone could write a helper
> >> application
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Matthew Dharm wrote:
>
>> Is there an 'easy' way to override the detected size of a storage
>> device from userspace? If we had that, someone could write a helper
>> application which looked for this particular fubar and tr
On 14-08-30 05:15 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Matthew Dharm wrote:
Is there an 'easy' way to override the detected size of a storage
device from userspace? If we had that, someone could write a helper
application which looked for this particular fubar and try to Do The
Right Thi
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> Is there an 'easy' way to override the detected size of a storage
> device from userspace? If we had that, someone could write a helper
> application which looked for this particular fubar and try to Do The
> Right Thing(tm), or at least offer the user
Is there an 'easy' way to override the detected size of a storage
device from userspace? If we had that, someone could write a helper
application which looked for this particular fubar and try to Do The
Right Thing(tm), or at least offer the user some options.
Matt
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:07 P
> From: Alan Stern
> If you try to repartition the drive under Windows using the deficient
> adapter, you'll see that the problem still exists. It just doesn't
> show up during normal use.
So in summary, the Windows workaround is icky, but it allows any use
but repartitioning to be one on the
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> What I find interesting is that Windows (at least, Windows 7
> Professional) seems to be able to handle the deficient adapter.
So does Linux. The difference is that Windows believes the values in
the partition table in preference to what the hardware
On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 15:21 -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > From: James Bottomley
>
> > Did you try read capacity 16 on it? What happened? (the AS2105 rejects
> > read capacity 16, so there's no reliable way to deduce the capacity of
> > drives over 2TB).
>
> OK, I had to track down which pac
What I find interesting is that Windows (at least, Windows 7
Professional) seems to be able to handle the deficient adapter. What
I'd like to do is log the disk commands during the mounting sequence,
preferably at both the SCSI and USB layers. Then at least we'll know
exactly what the driver is d
> From: James Bottomley
> Did you try read capacity 16 on it? What happened? (the AS2105 rejects
> read capacity 16, so there's no reliable way to deduce the capacity of
> drives over 2TB).
OK, I had to track down which package contains sg_readcap.
The adapter that fails gives this output:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > I don't think we want to add another SCSI flag to say that READ
> > CAPACITY(10) is unreliable.
>
> Why not? It would only be friendly to tell the upper layer
> of a malfunction if we know about it.
To what end? What will the upper layer do with thi
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 10:47 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Just set US_FL_NEEDS_CAP16. If READ CAPACITY(16) fails in that case,
> > it is clear that something is wrong. It must be set or READ CAPACITY(10)
> > alone would be taken as giving a valid answer.
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 15:39 -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> This is almost certainly a form of the problem reported in
> "AS2105-based enclosure size issues with >2TB HDDs". I'm repeating my
> original message here so linux-usb can see it, and so it can be
> connec
This is almost certainly a form of the problem reported in
"AS2105-based enclosure size issues with >2TB HDDs". I'm repeating my
original message here so linux-usb can see it, and so it can be
connected to the older thread. I'll address it in another message.
I'v
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 16:21 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alfredo Dal Ava Junior wrote:
> >
> > > Well, it is causing problems anyway... from user perspective, it's a
> > > Linux compatibility issue, as it works "fine" on Windows. I'
On Mon, 26 Aug 2014, David Leight wrote:
> I wonder what the manufacturer would saw in response the bug where
> windows shows the incorrect size when trying to partition the disk?
I contacted enclosure manufacturer (Welland) some weeks ago, they are supposed
to escalate my questions to enginee
From Oliver Neukum [mailto:oneu...@suse.de]
> On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 09:58 +, David Laight wrote:
> > > Part of the problem is that usb-storage has no way to know that
> > > anything strange is going on. It's normal for READ CAPACITY(16) to
> > > fail (this depend on the SCSI level), and it's n
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 09:58 +, David Laight wrote:
> > Part of the problem is that usb-storage has no way to know that
> > anything strange is going on. It's normal for READ CAPACITY(16) to
> > fail (this depend on the SCSI level), and it's normal for the READ
> > CAPACITY(10) to report a valu
From: Alan Stern
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alfredo Dal Ava Junior wrote:
>
> > Well, it is causing problems anyway... from user perspective, it's a
> > Linux compatibility issue, as it works "fine" on Windows. I'm not an
> > expert, but I'm wondering that if usb-storage could set capacity as
> > "UND
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 16:21 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alfredo Dal Ava Junior wrote:
>
> > Well, it is causing problems anyway... from user perspective, it's a
> > Linux compatibility issue, as it works "fine" on Windows. I'm not an
> > expert, but I'm wondering that if usb-st
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 Alan Stern wrote:
> Part of the problem is that usb-storage has no way to know that anything
> strange is going on. It's normal for READ CAPACITY(16) to fail (this depend
> on
> the SCSI level), and it's normal for the READ
> CAPACITY(10) to report a value less than 2 TB.
> R
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alfredo Dal Ava Junior wrote:
> Well, it is causing problems anyway... from user perspective, it's a
> Linux compatibility issue, as it works "fine" on Windows. I'm not an
> expert, but I'm wondering that if usb-storage could set capacity as
> "UNDETERMINED"/ Zero (or keep usi
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 Alan Stern wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alfredo Dal Ava Junior wrote:
>
> That's right. I don't know why Windows behaves that way.
Please look this output from diskpart (Windows):
DISKPART> list partition
Partition ### Type Size Offset
---
On Mon, 15 Aug 2014 James Bottomley wrote:
> So how did the partition get on there at the correct size in the first place?
> Even under windows partition managers believe the disk size they get from
> the system if the disk is blank.
The HDD can be partitioned outside the enclosure, when connect
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alfredo Dal Ava Junior wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > Don't forget that lots of disks go crazy if you try to read from a
> > nonexistent
> > block, that is, one beyond the end of the disk.
> > IMO, this bug cannot be worked around in any reasonable m
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 18:48 +, Alfredo Dal Ava Junior wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > Don't forget that lots of disks go crazy if you try to read from a
> > nonexistent
> > block, that is, one beyond the end of the disk.
> > IMO, this bug cannot be worked around in any
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> Don't forget that lots of disks go crazy if you try to read from a nonexistent
> block, that is, one beyond the end of the disk.
> IMO, this bug cannot be worked around in any reasonable manner. The
> device simply cannot handle disks larger than 2 TB.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 10:58 +, Alfredo Dal Ava Junior wrote:
>
> > - 1TB and 2TB: READ_CAPACITY_10 returns correct size value
> > - 3TB and 4TB: READ_CAPACITY_10 returns size in a 2TB modulus
> >
> > If we fix capacity size by reporting (READ_CAPAC
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 10:58 +, Alfredo Dal Ava Junior wrote:
> - 1TB and 2TB: READ_CAPACITY_10 returns correct size value
> - 3TB and 4TB: READ_CAPACITY_10 returns size in a 2TB modulus
>
> If we fix capacity size by reporting (READ_CAPACITY_10 + MODULO_2TB), the
> result
> will be invalid
38 matches
Mail list logo
