Very Computer

That's odd, I KNOW that a Zip Disk only has 1 platter,
which means it can only have 2 heads (upper & lower).
The math work out, however, so I can't complain. Maybe
this is some kind of LBA (logical block addressing)
thing?

Next question: Now that I have the Zip Drive connected,
how do I get Linux to mount a disk? I have added the
Zip to my fstab with this line:

/dev/hdc  /zip  msdos  noauto   0    0

When I try to "mount /zip" I get a little activity on
the Zip drive, and the following messages:

mount: block device /dev/hdc is write-protected, mounting read-only
hdc: media changed
hdc: packet command error: status=0x51
hdc: packet command error: error=0x50
hdc: code: 0x70  key: 0x05  asc: 0x20  ascq: 0x00
hdc: cdrom_read_intr: data underrun (1 blocks)
end_request: I/O error, dev 16:00, sector 1
FAT bread failed
mount: wrong fs type, bad options, bad superblock on /dev/hdc
       or too many mounted file systems

I only have three file systems mounted (/, /home, /proc),
so I know that I don't have too many mounted file systems.
I'm betting on the bad superblock, and I think that it is
caused by some ATAPI wierdness of the Zip drive. Maybe I
need to specify some kind of block size or something? Has
anyone else used an ATAPI Zip drive with Linux and gotten
it to work?

- Jeff Dutky

Quote:> >   Disk /dev/hdc: 12 heads, 32 sectors, 512 cylinders
> >   Units = cylinders of 384 * 512 bytes

> That's odd, I KNOW that a Zip Disk only has 1 platter,
> which means it can only have 2 heads (upper & lower).
> The math work out, however, so I can't complain. Maybe
> this is some kind of LBA (logical block addressing)
> thing?

It's a mystery to me, but it works so why rock the boat? ;)

Quote:> Next question: Now that I have the Zip Drive connected,
> how do I get Linux to mount a disk? I have added the
> Zip to my fstab with this line:

> /dev/hdc  /zip  msdos  noauto   0    0

You're trying to mount the zip like it was a CD-ROM, but you should be
mounting it like a hard disk; that is, use the partition number!
Factory-formatted disks use partition 4, but Windows-reformatted disks
use partition 1, so if you're using any reformatted disks you might want
to have two mount points (say /zip and /zip2) or it might get confused.
For just factory-formatted disks, your fstab line should look like this:

  /dev/hdc4  /zip  msdos  noauto  0  0

Also, I recommend using vfat instead of msdos so you can use long
filenames, and use noauto,user so that you can mount the disk without
being root (unless of course it would be an unsecure situation to do
so).

Let's compare this to my SCSI Zip drive and do some arithmetic.

12 * 32 = 384; 384 * 512 = 196,608; 196,608 * 512 = 100,663,296 bytes or
100 MB.

Now for my SCSI Zip drive:
  Disk /dev/sda: 64 heads, 32 sectors, 96 cylinders
  Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 bytes
64 * 32 = 2048; 2048 * 512 = 1,048,576; 1,048,576 * 96 = 100,663,296 bytes
or 100 MB

Notice that both these mappings give exactly the same number of bytes.
Which do you think is more efficient?

Quote:

> That's odd, I KNOW that a Zip Disk only has 1 platter,
> which means it can only have 2 heads (upper & lower).
> The math work out, however, so I can't complain. Maybe
> this is some kind of LBA (logical block addressing)
> thing?

> Next question: Now that I have the Zip Drive connected,
> how do I get Linux to mount a disk? I have added the
> Zip to my fstab with this line:

> /dev/hdc  /zip  msdos  noauto   0    0

When you use fdisk and use p to display the partition table on the Zip
disk, does it not show /dev/hdc4 as a DOS partition and the only partition
on the drive? If so, shouldn't you mount /dev/hdc4 and NOT /dev/hdc?
I always mount -t ext2 /dev/sda1 /zip (I format my disks before use).
If you issue the mount command with no arguments I suspect that except for
/proc and the CD-Rom drive all mounted devices end with a partition
number.

 > When I try to "mount /zip" I get a little activity on

Quote:> the Zip drive, and the following messages:

> mount: block device /dev/hdc is write-protected, mounting read-only
> hdc: media changed
> hdc: packet command error: status=0x51
> hdc: packet command error: error=0x50
> hdc: code: 0x70  key: 0x05  asc: 0x20  ascq: 0x00
> hdc: cdrom_read_intr: data underrun (1 blocks)
> end_request: I/O error, dev 16:00, sector 1
> FAT bread failed
> mount: wrong fs type, bad options, bad superblock on /dev/hdc
>        or too many mounted file systems

Linux thinks you are trying to mount a CD-Rom device (/dev/hdc often
defaults to being a CD-Rom drive).

Quote:> I only have three file systems mounted (/, /home, /proc),
> so I know that I don't have too many mounted file systems.
> I'm betting on the bad superblock, and I think that it is
> caused by some ATAPI wierdness of the Zip drive. Maybe I
> need to specify some kind of block size or something? Has
> anyone else used an ATAPI Zip drive with Linux and gotten
> it to work?

I don't know if this will fix your problem (I think you may have to make a
change to a BIOS setting or have a certain option or patch in the kernel
or be at a certain level of the kernel), but I hope this helps clarify
some things. Good Luck!

Why would you recommend using a M$ filesystem?  Use ext2 like your other
linux filesystems.  I also see no point in using disk partitioning:
"mke2fs -m 0 /dev/hdc", then mount /dev/hdc.

[snip]

Quote:>>   /dev/hdc4  /zip  msdos  noauto  0  0
>> Also, I recommend using vfat instead of msdos so you can use long
>> filenames, and use noauto,user so that you can mount the disk without
>> being root (unless of course it would be an unsecure situation to do
>> so).
>Why would you recommend using a M$ filesystem?  Use ext2 like your other
>linux filesystems.  I also see no point in using disk partitioning:
>"mke2fs -m 0 /dev/hdc", then mount /dev/hdc.

Sure, if you only use the Zip disks on your own system that's a
perfectly OK thing...
But, if you move between systems, maybe have a non-enlightened
employer or friend[s] insisting on running stuff other than Linux then
a M$ filesystem is the one most likely to be compatible... sad but true...

/Michael
--
|                  Linux: Turn on...Tune in...Fork out...                |
|     Michael Tempsch, member of Ballistic Wizards, TIP#088, POG#130     |

|  Cell.Phone:+46 705487554   URL:http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/%7Ed1temp  |

Exactly, I need to be able to move files between
my Linux box, PowerMac, and Win95 box. The only
file system they have in common is vfat, which is
fine since the Mac now supports the long filenames.
I WOULD use ext2fs if the external file system for
the Mac were working and if there was a version
for win95 as well.

As for why I don't have the machines networked: I
would except that it would involve running cable
all over my house and I don't currently have time
for that. (I'll get to it after this semester ends)

- Jeff Dutky