10 October 2009, 12:23 | #1 |
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
Very strange SFS behavior.
Hi,
When I was trying to clean up the mess on one of my Amiga HD partitions (SFS), I got checksum errors while deleting files. The strange thing is that no mater which file I try to delete, it's always the same block that has the error. The weirdest part is that after a reset, the file which couldn't be deleted because of the checksum error, can now be deleted, and when I continue to delete files, the error occurs again after deleting a couple of files, and of course it's the same block it happens in Very bizarre behavior indeed. The partition is located in the first 4GB of the drive, there don't seem to be any interfering patches and I have an A1200+'030. The maxtransfer setting for all my partitions is 0x00010000, so that can't be it. The SFS filesystem structure test program reports the partition to be okay Could it have anything to do with the large amount of files on the partition? This only started happening after temporarily copying a large number of extra files to the partition. I don't have a clue, and I don't know what to try Any help is appreciated |
10 October 2009, 12:48 | #2 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 637
|
http://wiki.abime.net/amiga:killergo...winuae_realhdd
According to this Maxtransfer should be 0x1fe00. Dont know if this is causing your problems, but its what I use and dont have any issues. |
10 October 2009, 12:53 | #3 |
Thalion Webshrine
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 14,460
|
If you are using IDE you should use 0x1FE00 or lower
The ATA protocol the Amiga IDE uses has commands with a sector count field 8-bits wide. Each sector is 512 bytes. The maximum you can transfer is 255 sectors. 255 * 512 = 0x1FE00 SCSI is totally different. |
10 October 2009, 13:25 | #4 | |
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
Thanks guys, but...
Quote:
0x00010000 is lower than 0x0001FE00 |
|
10 October 2009, 13:41 | #5 |
Thalion Webshrine
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 14,460
|
Some IDE devices and CF cards seem to have been designed around DOS/Windows which by default only issues ATA commands which use 7-bits of the sector count field (perhaps legacy signed 8-bit?) i.e. a MAX TRANS of 0xFE00
|
10 October 2009, 13:59 | #6 |
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
Although I've tried it, that isn't the problem, either. My HD is a 40GB drive which I bought new in 2005, so it's pretty unlikely that those old limitations still apply. I don't think that this is a simple max transfer problem at all
|
10 October 2009, 15:36 | #7 | |
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
Quote:
... this is always good advice Hehe, I don't think the block is actually bad: After deleting some files the checksum error pops up, then after a reboot I can delete those same files, but when I try to delete more the checksum error pops up again. I think that marking the block as bad will only move the problem to another block, and, it will probably need a reformat of the partition. |
|
10 October 2009, 15:47 | #8 |
Zone Friend
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,178
|
I've seen topics over at amiga.org where people say not to use an SFS partition for your temporary internet files. They say the large number of writes contributes to some sort of corruption.
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthre...martfilesystem |
10 October 2009, 17:57 | #9 | |
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
Quote:
This is indeed what seems to be the problem. All this only started after writing a large number of files to the partition. It's very probable that SFS has bugs which cause some problems, because it's still in BETA stage Am I now doomed to use FFS if I want reliability? Oh no |
|
10 October 2009, 21:20 | #10 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Eksjö / Sweden
Posts: 5,652
|
There's also PFS.
|
13 October 2009, 20:00 | #11 |
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
|
13 October 2009, 20:11 | #12 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'm behind you!
Posts: 3,763
|
Have you ever thought of trying SFS v184 (older version with the bonus of SCSI-direct 8GB support built in - double the usable size of your drive). I've never heard of anyone complain about it? It was the one originally developed before a new developer took over. SFS has always been beta however, so no guarantees.
Or a more recent (than v184) but older version of SFS someone on this board might be able to recommend as trouble free. Another option is using some of the free SCSI patches available and a FFS 64-bit alternative. The upside to this is you might be able to use all of your hard drive. I'm adding the required files to do this to the next ClassicWB release, but I can zip them up for you and place them in the zone. |
13 October 2009, 20:15 | #13 |
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
An older version, eh? Couldn't hurt to try, although I can use the whole drive (40GB) because of IdeFix with SFS. I'll take it under consideration .
|
13 October 2009, 20:17 | #14 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'm behind you!
Posts: 3,763
|
I didn't read you were using IDE-fix - the most popular large drive solution.
Can't really think what else to try, apart from the 64bit FFS versions. |
13 October 2009, 20:20 | #15 | |
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
Quote:
Sounds good, too, but I sure hope it isn't BETA software... |
|
13 October 2009, 20:47 | #16 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'm behind you!
Posts: 3,763
|
It's the one from here, but you have to patch them first to remove, *gasp*, the beta alert:
http://os.amigaworld.de/index.php?lang=en&page=37 You might end up going back to this thread, where people suggest sticking to 3.5/9 and FFS: http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=34493 |
13 October 2009, 20:55 | #17 | ||
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
Quote:
Quote:
Thanks |
||
13 October 2009, 21:24 | #18 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'm behind you!
Posts: 3,763
|
Well, you have two options then - an older SFS version that someone can vouch for.
OR - the patched files I'll put in the zone for you. Yes, they even work in Workbench 2.0 as pointed out by the great Thomas himself (google translated link, original in German): http://translate.google.co.uk/transl...hdd/index.html I think the patched FFS can work with IDE-fix, you don't have to use the patched SCSI-device I've put in the pack, but someone might have to confirm that. This is the method I'll be using for the new ClassicWB packs, which use Workbench 2.0, 3.0 and 3.1. Last edited by Bloodwych; 13 October 2009 at 21:35. |
13 October 2009, 21:41 | #19 |
Computer Nerd
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 3,839
|
Bloodwych, thank you very much I've downloaded the archive you've uploaded and I'll check out an older version of SFS. If that doesn't solve my troubles, then nothing will (apart from PFS, perhaps).
|
13 October 2009, 22:26 | #20 |
BlizzardPPC'less
|
I can still recommend PFS, it's been working on my HD's great for years now
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Strange problem with ClassicWB 3.9 on SFS or PFS boot partition | Tarel78 | project.ClassicWB | 15 | 20 April 2012 07:56 |
Strange hdf behavior [not really a problem]. | olesio | support.WinUAE | 4 | 13 August 2009 08:34 |
discovered strange behavior | NfernalNfluence | support.WinUAE | 7 | 26 May 2009 08:10 |
Strange behavior in A4000 | Computolio | support.Hardware | 8 | 22 September 2007 12:39 |
Unsual Case of Dr. Strange / Return of Doctor Strange | killergorilla | HOL contributions | 1 | 12 July 2007 16:08 |
|
|