Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

All questions about how to use KryoFlux go here.
TotO
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by TotO » Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:22 pm

3.5" :
Samsung SFD-321B, T3, Tracks: 84

hydr0x
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by hydr0x » Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:57 pm

mr.vince wrote: TEAC, FD-235HF, Tracks: 82
Where does the 82 come from? quoting:
TerokNor wrote:I have 3 TEAC FD-235HF, all work fine, 1 goes to maxtrack=80, the other two go to maxtrack=81.
I just received my KryoFlux (yay) and tested it with a FD-235HF aswell and it reports maxtrack 81 too.

Can someone explain to me (admittedly not well-versed in disk drive technology) if this presents a problem for preserving my games or not? I could buy another drive if 83/84 tracks is better suited. I'm mainly asking because my first test looked like this, with unknown tracks:

Image

As a sidenote, the quick start guide / manual is not entirely correct for Windows 7. It seems Win7 does not register a new device after the first c2 (which resulted in a command rejected for me btw). They probably improved driver registration.

User avatar
mr.vince
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:48 pm

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by mr.vince » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:15 pm

hydr0x wrote: Where does the 82 come from?
Errm. Math. 0..81 is how many tracks? ;)

Just read it again. maxtrack=81. And we're starting at 0.

It's like the maximum value for a byte is 255, but starts at 0.
hydr0x wrote: Can someone explain to me (admittedly not well-versed in disk drive technology) if this presents a problem for preserving my games or not? I could buy another drive if 83/84 tracks is better suited. I'm mainly asking because my first test looked like this, with unknown tracks:[...]
All is fine. Unknown tracks are unformatted. Usually OS's do not use 80+. As for 84 tracks. There are only 2 games we know of that would make use of any track higher than 81. So... in many many cases this is not an issue.
hydr0x wrote: As a sidenote, the quick start guide / manual is not entirely correct for Windows 7. It seems Win7 does not register a new device after the first c2 (which resulted in a command rejected for me btw). They probably improved driver registration.
Thanks, maybe it just picks the driver on its own again. Which is cool. In case you don't want to specify another one.

hydr0x
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by hydr0x » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:56 pm

mr.vince wrote: Errm. Math. 0..81 is how many tracks? ;)

Just read it again. maxtrack=81. And we're starting at 0.

It's like the maximum value for a byte is 255, but starts at 0.
Doh :!: :lol:
All is fine. Unknown tracks are unformatted. Usually OS's do not use 80+. As for 84 tracks. There are only 2 games we know of that would make use of any track higher than 81. So... in many many cases this is not an issue.
I see. Would I notice if I had a game that goes beyond track 81? I have way too many games to test all the images after preserving them ;) Seems like I can start my backups then :) Here I come 103 (5.25) + 175 (3.5) + 17 (both) games :lol: How important are those info files? As you can see I've got plenty to dump and to be honest my time is quite limited, especially as I'm working on my own games site retrocollect.com (btw, feel free to split this post into a new topic)

User avatar
mr.vince
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:48 pm

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by mr.vince » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:58 pm

hydr0x wrote:How important are those info files?
Dumps are mostly useless without. :)

hydr0x
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by hydr0x » Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:25 pm

mr.vince wrote:
hydr0x wrote:How important are those info files?
Dumps are mostly useless without. :)
Let's rephrase my question then. How important is it to fill them out to the last detail? I have photos of all my games and would be willing to attach them to the committed dumps. Most of the info you want can be gathered from them. It's just that I don't have the time at all to begin writing this stuff done until at least 2012 but it'd be a shame to no contribute them because of this. I have some pretty interesting stuff in the collection like the entirely undocumented DOS version of Gem'X. Ah, what the heck, I'll just try to fill them out while dumping the game itself. Could you possibly provide me with a simple example txt for IBM PC dumps containing the essential fields you need. That'd help :)

User avatar
IFW
Posts: 3079
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by IFW » Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:53 pm

It's fairly important, as without information the file is just a disk dump (good thing of course), with information it's a piece of gaming history - and helps understanding the exact SKU preserved etc.
Of course scans/photos are very useful too, and help double checking, verifying and so on; the info file helps finding details that may only be present in the manual, or for searching a specific version, comparing without trying to decipher just by using visuals what the content should be.
Either way your help is much appreciated.

User avatar
Malvineous
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by Malvineous » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:35 am

hydr0x wrote:Would I notice if I had a game that goes beyond track 81? I have way too many games to test all the images after preserving them ;)
I think the way to do this is check to see if your dump finishes with 'unformatted' or 'unknown' tracks. Once you reach these you have gotten to the end of the data. If your drive supports maxtrack=81 and you ever get valid data on track 81, then there's a chance track 82 might have data as well and you should look for another drive that can read this track. But if track 80 and 81 are both unused (as seen in the screenshot a few posts back) then there's little if any risk that you are missing data.

Of course this assumes that no tracks are ever 'skipped' and left unformatted, I haven't seen enough disks/dumps to know whether that's likely.

User avatar
IFW
Posts: 3079
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by IFW » Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:28 pm

Just what Malvineous said.
As for skipping unused tracks it's very common (saving a few seconds per disk is easily hours at the end of the day), writing anything from 80.0 (apart from Trace job information used by the duplicator for tracking) is not.

User avatar
IFW
Posts: 3079
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Drives confirmed working with KryoFlux

Post by IFW » Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:33 pm

Slight addition: if there is anything from 80.0 and it's not Traceback info, chances are it's protection and will come up as unformatted; you are better off watching the cell bands found. If e.g. for Amiga it matches the expected cell bands which are 4, 6, 8us then it is written, just the contents are unknown.
Traceback is usually written in FM (so most machines can't read it and mistake it with genuine data) and would yield 4, 8us cell bands.

Post Reply