Subject: Re: IEEE1394 (firewire) vs USB2
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Scott Ellis <email@example.com>
Date: 08/03/2002 14:17:06
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 05:52:25PM -0700, Chuck Yerkes wrote:
> Quoting Kevin Sullivan (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> > The deciding factor may be NetBSD support, so: using 1.6 (i386 mostly),
> > which is better supported, umass via USB2 or firewire? Is this likely to
> > change soon? Also, does one or the other bus have serious design flaws
> > which will cripple it?
> Neither works with 1.6 that I know of. Let me also toss the
> cup of gasoline that is Firewire2.
USB2 works just fine with 1.6 at least. I've got an external 3.5" IDE->
USB2 enclosure (marked ADSTech on the case, see
for product info).
It shows up as:
umass0 at uhub3 port 4 configuration 2 interface 0
umass0: DMI USB 2.0 Storage Adaptor, rev 2.00/11.10, addr 2
umass0: using SCSI over Bulk-Only
scsibus0 at umass0: 2 targets, 1 luns per target
scsibus0: waiting 2 seconds for devices to settle...
sd0 at scsibus0 target 1 lun 0: <WDC WD12, 00JB-75CRA0, 16.0> SCSI0 0/direct fixed
sd0: 111 GB, 114440 cyl, 64 head, 32 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 234375000 sectors
Performance wise, I get well over 10MByte/sec writing to it (I use it for
backups), so it's perfectly acceptable WRT performance for my needs. ;-)
// Scott Ellis // email@example.com //
// WARNING: This signature warps time and space in its vicinity //