English Amiga Board

English Amiga Board (http://eab.abime.net/index.php)
-   support.Other (http://eab.abime.net/forumdisplay.php?f=74)
-   -   Kryoflux Imaging Timings (http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=98344)

sTe 05 August 2019 21:58

Kryoflux Imaging Timings
 
This is probably best on the kryoflux forums, but will try here first.

I was wondering, how quickly those who own a kryoflux board on a PC can image a standard Amiga 3.5" standard disk (no copy protection etc).

For me, I can do them ~<2 minutes each disk.

Now speaking with a friend of mine, when he uses an Amiga to make ADF files, he can do them <50 seconds. They both read at 300rpms ... so wonder where the bottle neck is, and if its possible to speed up the process.

I wondered if its possible to image to ADF on the PC any faster, if its a problem with my computer and time for an upgrade. Or if this is due to kryoflux having to decode / transmit over slow USB?

Just wondered what you other ladies and gents are getting.

lesta_smsc 05 August 2019 23:22

I suppose limitation is based on read speed and usually faster can result in more errors.

BarryB 06 August 2019 02:00

The reason could be that if you use -i0 in dtc then it defaults to sampling 5 revolutions per track, so that's why it takes longer!

If you want to dump to ADF only use: dtc -p -fDir/File.adf -i5

chip 06 August 2019 07:54

Interesting thread

Can we say that imaging with Kryoflux is more safe than imaging with an Amiga ? :blased

dlfrsilver 06 August 2019 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip (Post 1336624)
Interesting thread

Can we say that imaging with Kryoflux is more safe than imaging with an Amiga ? :blased

yes. Without a doubt. Basically, with an amiga or if you read a disk as ADF, it's faster because you read tracks.

With kryoflux, you dump tracks as flux (very low level), it's not the same thing.

chip 06 August 2019 09:55

That's true ONLY for protected disks ?

I mean, if the disk is not protected in any way, there's no difference between Kryoflux or Amiga ?

Some confusion on this :blased

sTe 06 August 2019 11:31

@BarryB -- yes -i0 ... wished it would have an option to do less rotations... would make re-reading bad tracks a god send -- but its too slow for me when doing lots of disks.

I normally default to -i5 -- this is where I get ~2mins per disk. I wondered if anyone uses the same, and can do it faster.

@Chip -- depends on the disk I guess ... take a look at tmb's dumps... mostly using diskripper and only switching to kryoflux on PC, or kryoflux on Amiga depending on the disk complexities.

@dlfrsilver -- I wonder how the capturing works, because if I used i5 -- its format guided (from what I've read) and reads tracks? if it finds a bad track you can hear it, and it retries and retries and reties. The same bad disk, if I do a i0 -- I dont hear it having problems ... nothing, just the disk being read -- any bad tracks are recorded inside the flux data. So does i5 do a flux read / decode at each track position? or does it read the track directly?

Anyway, still interesting topic -- always wondering if its possible to speed up the imaging from the PC. Still interested in others i5 timings ... also, has there ever been a kryoflux version, which does a i0 -- but you can do less than 5 rotations? Ideally ... if I had too ... I would like the same speed of i5, but doing an i0 instead -- due to the ability to re-read individual tracks if it failed the first time.

Or maybe someone has a better workflow they can suggest to speed up the capture / ability to re-scan bad tracks when they fail and inject good data back into the image file?

Thanks for everyones input / replies etc.

dlfrsilver 06 August 2019 11:35

yes the kryoflux is not suited to mass reading of disks.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 21:10.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Page generated in 0.04042 seconds with 11 queries