05 August 2019, 21:58 | #1 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 76
|
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. |
05 August 2019, 23:22 | #2 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,173
|
I suppose limitation is based on read speed and usually faster can result in more errors.
|
06 August 2019, 02:00 | #3 |
Amigaholic
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 4,676
|
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 |
06 August 2019, 07:54 | #4 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Italy
Age: 49
Posts: 2,942
|
Interesting thread
Can we say that imaging with Kryoflux is more safe than imaging with an Amiga ? |
06 August 2019, 08:57 | #5 | |
CaptainM68K-SPS France
|
Quote:
With kryoflux, you dump tracks as flux (very low level), it's not the same thing. |
|
06 August 2019, 09:55 | #6 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Italy
Age: 49
Posts: 2,942
|
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 |
06 August 2019, 11:31 | #7 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 76
|
@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. |
06 August 2019, 11:35 | #8 |
CaptainM68K-SPS France
|
yes the kryoflux is not suited to mass reading of disks.
|
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 |
|
|