[1755] in linux-scsi channel archive
Re: Is SCSI partitioning universally readable/writable?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bradley M Keryan)
Fri Apr 25 08:59:09 1997
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:57:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bradley M Keryan <keryan@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: Marc SCHAEFER <schaefer@alphanet.ch>, linux-scsi@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <5jj32f$vas$1@vulcan.alphanet.ch>
On 22 Apr 1997, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
> lbliao (lbliao@alumnae.caltech.edu) wrote:
> > For example partitions were made using aha 1515, and not the card is 2940,
> > will it read the disk? Is there any portability to the SCSI disk or format?
> > Is there upward compatibility?
>
> Yes, as long as you use PC based partitionning. There is no
> portability between architectures on the partition nor
> filesystem level (the latter mainly for endianess issues).
Not quite. This might be an extreme case, but my father has used a Syquest
EZ135 drive to transfer files between an Amiga (running AmigaDOS, not
Linux 68k) and a PC running Linux x86 2.0.25 before, with the amiga ffs
filesystem driver. Perhaps Linux has rigid disk block support (Amiga
partition tables) from the work done with Linux 68k?
However, the x86 machine *was* able to read the disk, which had been
partitioned and formatted on the Amiga, and there were no problems with
endianness.
Ironically, the EZ135 was about 30% bigger than the Amiga's hard drive ...
On the other hand, don't PC SCSI BIOSes that use "extended translation"
sometimes cause problems, when different controllers support different
translation schemes? (Read: it may be possible to mount drives from a
12-year old Amiga 1000, but not from another PC SCSI controller? Or am I
missing something here?)
[ rest of message deleted ]
Brad Keryan
keryan@andrew.cmu.edu
http://fatale.res.cmu.edu/
finger keryan@andrew.cmu.edu for my PGP public key
