English Amiga Board Amiga Lore


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.Apps

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04 February 2010, 11:24   #1
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 39
Posts: 1,490
The scsi.device delay. Can it be reduced?

As i understand it, the delay present in the scsi.device inside the kickstart rom was designed to provide compatibility for old, hence slow spinning drives, and give them enough time to actually be accesible.
In these days of CompactFlash and solid state drives solutions for the Amiga, shouldnt it be possible and make sense to reduce that delay generating with that a faster booting system?

Could it be as simple as implementing a patch to scsi.device?

Has someone done it? or knows how to do it?
gulliver is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 04 February 2010, 11:44   #2
coze
hastala vista winny vista
coze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: mt fuji
Age: 39
Posts: 1,333
Send a message via ICQ to coze Send a message via Yahoo to coze
check blizkick
coze is offline  
Old 04 February 2010, 14:49   #3
Minuous
Coder/webmaster/gamer
Minuous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canberra/Australia
Posts: 1,644
If you've got an A3000 or A4000 you can edit the battery-backed RAM with Report+ to change the SCSI spinup delay (among other things).
Minuous is offline  
Old 04 February 2010, 18:50   #4
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 11,880
Assuming you still have a working battery.
alexh is offline  
Old 04 February 2010, 20:36   #5
Doobrey
Hamster tamer
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Out in the woods
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by gulliver View Post
As i understand it, the delay present in the scsi.device inside the kickstart rom was designed to provide compatibility for old, hence slow spinning drives, and give them enough time to actually be accesible.

In these days of CompactFlash and solid state drives solutions for the Amiga, shouldnt it be possible and make sense to reduce that delay generating with that a faster booting system?
If you're using a CF/IDE adapter or a relatively modern IDE drive (anything made in the last 10 yrs or so) you shouldn't need to reduce the delay.
The delay is only happens if scsi.device's init code can't find any ATA device on the bus, so it keeps on looking until it reaches a hardcoded 'timeout' value, and quits if it can't find anything.
(IIRC, OS2.x to OS3.0 was 9 secs, 3.1 was 30 secs, 3.9 went to 31 secs)

Quote:
Could it be as simple as implementing a patch to scsi.device?

Has someone done it? or knows how to do it?
I did one over Xmas, it's a Blizkick/Remus patch that should work with all IDE scsi.devices,reducing the timeout back to 9 secs, and as an added bonus it removes the beta 'timeout' warning from Amiga Int's scsi.device 43.24
http://www.doobreynet.co.uk/files/remus/IDEDelayFix.lha
Doobrey is offline  
Old 04 February 2010, 21:58   #6
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 39
Posts: 1,490
Thanks everyone very much. These were the kind of answers i was looking for
gulliver is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
 


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kickstart 1.3 with scsi.device 8bitbubsy support.Hardware 47 23 January 2016 22:22
Which scsi.device? dannyp1 support.Apps 7 25 January 2012 22:10
scsi.device 44.2 on A600 - broken? d0pefish support.Apps 25 05 January 2011 07:00
What scsi.device for a A2091 in a 4000D? davideo support.Hardware 10 09 August 2008 01:28
No more 30sec IDE delay on a scsi A4000 ... keropi Hardware pics 2 11 October 2006 13:02

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 05:33.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.14664 seconds with 11 queries