OSD in review - February, 2002

Mcgrath, Jim Jim_Mcgrath at maxtor.com
Wed Feb 20 18:36:08 PST 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Mcgrath, Jim" <Jim_Mcgrath at maxtor.com>
*

If you just need platform transportability, then the removable media issue
is not an issue for HDDs.  i.e. just plug them in while powered down, then
power up - power down again and then remove them.  There are actually people
who write software that can let you do more, but for most people that's not
a major issue.  Cd-ROM and DVD have their own formats (as does tape).  I
assume there is an accepted standard for DVD (or multiple standards given
the other issues in this area :-)) already.

Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: Pat LaVarre [mailto:LAVARRE at iomega.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 1:09 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: OSD in review - February, 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Pat LaVarre" <LAVARRE at iomega.com>
*
> just use Fat-32

Anyone got a theory for why peer-to-peer file exchange isn't more real, say,
among bus-powered FireWire devices?

In contrast with Ftp, an approach like Fat-32 assymetrically burdens the
writer/reader of the file with the file system support.  In practice,
everybody refuses the burden: they ship Lba access and nothing more.

> lot of folks just use Fat-32 between platforms
> (especially the PC and Mac for AV stuff)

I likewise hear people use removable FireWire & Usb hard drives this way.

> lot of folks just use Fat-32

Microsoft's implementation on Fat-32 has more than a normal collection of
Issues.

The most simply painful summary known to me appears at
<http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q284969> where we
see Microsoft state "... behavior is by design. Windows [95/98/ME] is not
designed to handle removable media that is formatted with the FAT32 file
system."

It's a fun diversion to survey how deeply Microsoft contradicts itself on
these issues, but it's not much fun to experience these issues.

> when Fat-32 runs out....

I hear the overhead gets painful quickly?  I know with Usb1 a person can
observe the Fat cacheing time.

> NTFS

I'm not clear on the issues with NTFS.  Maybe Microsoft has that locked into
a single platform with patents, incomplete doc, etc.?

Pat LaVarre

>>> "Mcgrath, Jim" <Jim_Mcgrath at maxtor.com> 02/20/02 01:38PM >>>

My understanding is that a lot of folks just use Fat-32 between platforms
(especially the PC and Mac for AV stuff).  Of course, when Fat-32 runs
out....

Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: Pat LaVarre [mailto:LAVARRE at iomega.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:07 AM
To: t10 at t10.org 
Subject: OSD in review - February, 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Pat LaVarre" <LAVARRE at iomega.com>
*
> "Elliott, Robert" <Robert.Elliott at COMPAQ.com> 02/19/02 12:51PM
> ...
> You may want to peruse the OSD command set,
> which has lots of long CDBs
> and discusses using bidirectional for its CREATE command.

Thanks for this pointer.

How live/dead is this OSD effort?  Is it here that people discuss it?
Anybody out there actually implementing this protocol?

I ask because I hear above the 2GiB limit of FAT-16 LFN people don't have a
commonly agreed standard for sneaker-netting filesystems between platforms.

At first glance, I'd say T10 OSD is a form of Ftp over Scsi ... which is
interesting for efforts like file exchange for peer-to-peer Usb (aka Usb OTG
= On The Go).

Pat LaVarre
...


*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org




More information about the T10 mailing list