On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:53:19PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Jan De Luyck wrote: > > > I've posted in the past about problems with these enclosures - increasing > > the > > delay seems to fix it, albeit temporarily. The further you go in using the > > disk in such an enclosure, the higher the udelay() had to be - atleast > > that's > > what I'm seeing here (I've got two of these now :/ ) > > > > One permanent fix is adding a powered USB-hub in between the drive > > enclosures > > and the computer. Since I've done that, I've no longer seen any of the > > problems (i've attached the 'fault' log). Weird but true, since the drives > > come with their own powersupply. > > > > Hope this helps anyone in the future running into the same problem. > > This one certainly goes into the Bizarro file. > > Just out of curiosity -- when you use the powered hub, does the drive work > even if you remove that delay completely?
Aren't USB 2.0 hubs more "intelligent" as part of the requirement to
support 1.1 and 2.0 devices? I wonder if it's really a 2.0 drive, and if
the timing is different enough with the hub to make a difference.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
THEY CASTRATED MY QUAKE BITS! I WANT THEM BACK!!!!
-- Greg
User Friendly, 3/27/1998
pgpBpRkEQySEG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
