English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.Other

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05 August 2019, 21:58   #1
sTe
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 52
Floppy disk 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.
sTe is offline  
Old 05 August 2019, 23:22   #2
lesta_smsc
Registered User

lesta_smsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,681
I suppose limitation is based on read speed and usually faster can result in more errors.
lesta_smsc is offline  
Old 06 August 2019, 02:00   #3
BarryB
Amigaholic

 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3,027
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
BarryB is offline  
Old 06 August 2019, 07:54   #4
chip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Italy
Age: 44
Posts: 1,290
Interesting thread

Can we say that imaging with Kryoflux is more safe than imaging with an Amiga ?
chip is offline  
Old 06 August 2019, 08:57   #5
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 42
Posts: 8,145
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
Quote:
Originally Posted by chip View Post
Interesting thread

Can we say that imaging with Kryoflux is more safe than imaging with an Amiga ?
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.
dlfrsilver is offline  
Old 06 August 2019, 09:55   #6
chip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Italy
Age: 44
Posts: 1,290
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
chip is offline  
Old 06 August 2019, 11:31   #7
sTe
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 52
@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.
sTe is offline  
Old 06 August 2019, 11:35   #8
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 42
Posts: 8,145
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
yes the kryoflux is not suited to mass reading of disks.
dlfrsilver is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do these timings look right Auscoder Coders. Asm / Hardware 4 17 July 2019 09:35
68020+ instruction timings? oRBIT Coders. Asm / Hardware 3 23 September 2017 12:38
New imaging method? Pheonix request.Apps 2 27 August 2009 05:41
Fastest possible but maintain chipset timings Kintaro support.WinUAE 0 26 July 2005 14:39
CPU emulation and timings....... Bloodwych support.WinUAE 1 04 August 2003 16:00

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:32.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.07552 seconds with 14 queries